Good news: More Americans believe in the devil than in evolution
posted at 2:00 pm on December 12, 2008 by Allahpundit
Via the new Harris Poll, a long-distance dedication to my pal CJ, the creationist-slayer. Key data points are in yellow. I’m not sure how to explain Catholics’ greater credulity on matters as diverse as evolution, ghosts, and UFOs, but your theories are welcome. As for the top line, we already have theistic atheists. Why shouldn’t we have atheistic theists, too?
One other intriguing data point at the link: More Americans believe the Old Testament is the word of God (55 percent) than the New Testament (54 percent). Presumably the former attracted Jewish votes that the latter didn’t, but that margin should have been more than offset by a subset of Christians — like, say, George Bush — who don’t regard the OT as literally true but surely take the gospels at face value. Here’s David Brody of CBN picking up on that on CNN yesterday. Exit quotation: “Well, hello! It’s the Holy Bible!”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 16 Next »
Interesting that 55% of people believe the OT to be the word of God but only 26% thought the Torah was the word of God.
dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 10:03 AM
What caused all the beievers to give up on Santa Claus?
I used to have similar questions, including one about the true extent of the flood. I was admonished by two ministers that the Bible is the inspired word of God and Jonah and Noah were real people and what was described in the Bible was literally true. The flood was not regional because the Bible said it was world-wide and that’s the end of the discussion.
After Sept. 11, 2001, and all my studies since, I have concluded that all religions have the same origins – the faulty human mind.
All of you who believe in a Creator, your job is to figure out who this Creator is. Every religion and culture have creation stories. Pick one, there are hundreds.
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Again, Nicene did nothing more than ‘put down on paper’ what was ALREADY thought/believed.
Nicene did not ‘create’ anything new.
Any other view show a complete and total ignorance of history.
Religious_Zealot on December 13, 2008 at 10:25 AM
I think this comes back to the way you keep conflating the scientific theory of evolution with some kind of atheistic faith.
You are going to have problems discussing this topic with a lot of people until you stop doing this.
Count to 10 on December 13, 2008 at 11:21 AM
I am not a Catholic but I see in Catholicism a religious system that immerses the family to the extent people do not want to leave its protective embrace. It is a successful system with its own schools and hospitals and many inspiring religious who dedicate their lives to running the system. It is similar to the Mormon church, and islam in that respect.
The obligations and observances are an important part of the household to the extent people do not want to let go of it, even when they have renounced God, or the idea that partial birth abortion is murder.
That is how I explain half of the catholic population supporting Obama, who takes the hardest line in politics against rescuing babies born alive
There is now a Catholic lifestyle divorced form catholic belief, similar to all the people who put up Christmas trees without any connection to the birth of Christ.
The Christmas tree secularists can be morphed into eventually calling their trees ‘Holiday trees’ and totally drifting away from Christian expression, but to be immersed in the Catholic lifestyle, you require a priest when times get tough, for confession, absolution, and comfort
entagor on December 13, 2008 at 11:41 AM
It used to be that all roads led to Rome.
My collie says:
AllahPundit should get some “tolerance” points out of this one.
CyberCipher on December 13, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Now you’ve gone and stepped in it. They’ll be here shortly.
platypus on December 13, 2008 at 1:36 PM
As somebody who was born, baptized, and confirmed Catholic (now a Protestant) I would say that a majority of Catholics simply don’t know what’s in their own Bible. The Bible gets tremendous emphasis on the Protestant side of the house not so the Catholic. The more you know your Bible the less you fall for the follies of man.
Mojave Mark on December 13, 2008 at 2:18 PM
I thought all threads led to Hitler. As in Goodwin’s Law.
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 2:45 PM
uh it IS an atheistic faith. I’ve already proven it, by quoting evolutionists. evolution purports to explain all human behavior, and it rules out God. what would you call it?? atheism, what else?
there is no ‘science’ behind evolution. no proof. its a faith. its a worldview.
this is evolution…atheism
you want the science? mutations do not add up. sorry.
linnk
and no evolutionists do not like anyone who dares disagree with their faith.. thats why they try to silence harass and intimidate anyone who disagrees, like the good darwiniac imams they are. ask sternberg.
right4life on December 13, 2008 at 3:07 PM
I’ve been trying to give you advice, because arguing with you doesn’t seem to be doing you any good. Until you realize how dogmatic and self-limited you are being on this subject, all you are going to do is antagonize people.
You are behaving just like an Obama voter.
Count to 10 on December 13, 2008 at 4:12 PM
The ones who are self-limited are those who believe there is no spiritual side to reality. Those who believe that only that which is natural exists are the ones who are dogmatic.
Rose on December 13, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Many who use science to build tools and develop empirical results also have a spiritual side. Science can tell us something about how we got here but not much about why we are here or how we should behave.
dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 4:51 PM
The ones who are self-limited are those who believe there is no natural side to reality. Those who believe that only that which is in the Bible exists are the ones who are dogmatic.
I repaired your comments.
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 4:53 PM
what advise? I am dogmatic? because I don’t believe in evolution? well what about Dawkins, do you think he is dogmatic?? just curious.
as far as ‘antagonizing’ people…why don’t you comment on what happened to sternberg??
apparently you cannot refute what I have said, but you refuse to believe it, and prefer to take the focus off the issue, and place it upon my perceived failing. give me a break. please.
right4life on December 13, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Creationism cannot be proven by trying to refute evolution. The Phlogiston Theory was not directly disproven, a more plausible, correct explanation of combustion and oxidation was developed. If one wants to disprove evolution, creation needs to be proven. Perhaps the Creator in Genesis is not the correct one. Maybe the creator was the one described in Hindu or Zoroastrian texts, or Mayan or Aztec, or Babylonian, or . . .
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Pelayo, you didn’t repair my comment, you only confirmed it.
Rose on December 13, 2008 at 5:09 PM
oh please darwiniacs are the most intolerant hate-filled people around. talk about dogmatic, when anyone who dares disagree with faith in the hairyone is expelled, sued, silenced, harassed.
tell you what, why don’t you go ahead and prove evolution. take a bacteria, and evolve it into a multi-cellular animal. should be easy. you can even name it!!
right4life on December 13, 2008 at 5:11 PM
here’s an examle of the ‘tolerant’ ‘open minded’ scientific community:
link
who is dogmatic again?
right4life on December 13, 2008 at 5:14 PM
People of faith believe that both exists, spiritual as well as natural. People who are secularists only believe in the natural world. To these people nothing else exists. That is being close minded. It is up to those who believe in both to seek what is truth in the spiritual realm. Those who only believe in the natural don’t even bother.
Rose on December 13, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Depends on your source documents, but fair enough.
I’d strongly advise further research into the early Church. If what you are saying were true, the Nicene Council would have been unnecessary, and there would not have been the later schism between Orthodoxy and Catholicism over doctrine. There were many, many doctrinal beliefs held by different pre-Nicene congregations, and the inter-group violence was tearing the civilized world apart. That is one of the major reasons that Constantine convoked the Council.
I’d also recommend that you take a look at some of the books available at the time that the Council left OUT of the canon–as well as the books included in some versions of the Bible but left out of others.
Best wishes, and I’d be happy to continue this conversation in a different venue.
q2600 on December 13, 2008 at 5:19 PM
The epistles were the foundation of the doctrine. These letters were passed from church to church. The Nicene Council wanted to make sure that only those epistles that could be traced to the original founders of the early church would be considered for doctrine. These epistles were written within the first century mostly by witnesses of the ministry of Jesus.
Rose on December 13, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Read my comment about Phlogiston. If you want to disprove evolution, you all need to prove creation. I must tell all of you that science is not faith. Phlogiston as a theory survived for only about 100 years, it was not adhered to because of faith, when the true chemical reaction was discovered, phlogiston was dropped like a hot potato. When a plausible and testable theory contrary to evolution is presented, scientists will take notice.
I’ll start giving the Genesis Creation “theory” some credibility when someone discovers cave paintings of dinosaurs.
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 5:25 PM
you haven’t proven evolution. it doesn’t even pass the smell test. since you think life started without God, then it should be easy to prove…mix a few chemicals, add a little electricity, ala frankenstein, and shazam, life!!
right??
right4life on December 13, 2008 at 5:31 PM
right4life, Evolution in general and Darwinism in particular is not the mechanism that can be used to fill the scientific void between no life and the beginnings of primitive life. You think it is a creator of some kind, I don’t know.
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 5:33 PM
and yes ‘science’ at least the science of the hairyone, is faith. evolution has not been observed in the lab, or in the field (macro-evolution). we observe micro-evolution, which is perfectly within the creationist framework, and then evolutionists extrapolate that to the macro. by faith. not by science, reproducing it, or observing it.
right4life on December 13, 2008 at 5:33 PM
but evolution has to believe that life started by self-replicating molecules that became living organisms. as I quoted mayr above, no God is necessary.
evolution likes to try to dodge the issue of origins, but to be logically consistent, they have to address them.
and apparently others believe there is a link…
Committee on the Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems, Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life, National Research Council
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11919#toc
….otherwise they wouldn’t have a committee on the origins and evolution of life.
right4life on December 13, 2008 at 5:37 PM
Here is a link for the dates of the New Testament epistles.
Rose on December 13, 2008 at 5:38 PM
That’s a tough order. You are asking for an experiment that would take several million years. Get real. It would be easier for you to find that cave with dinosaurs painted on the wall. When are you gonna start looking?
Evoution is being examined right now before your very eyes if you would open them. Coyotes are now in every state in the US. Wildlife agencies are comparing eastern coyotes with their western cousins, and looking for different charactisterics.
Do you actually think that the southwestern mule deer and the eastern whitetail deer were created separately? If you accept that several hundred thousand years ago there was one deer species, then you are talking about evolution.
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 5:45 PM
really? why does it take time?? people have reported human tracks with dinosaurs, of course those are all fake..but I’ve noticed evolution is slow when it needs to be, and fast when it wants to be:
link
as Jed clampett would say,
well doggy, that evolution shure is a clever critter’
no they are the same ‘kind’ for example:
link
right4life on December 13, 2008 at 5:52 PM
what do you want to bet they could breed and produce offspring? just like lions and tigers can…ever hear of a liger???
so much for ‘evolving’…kind of like the tuatara, and coelecanth.
right4life on December 13, 2008 at 5:54 PM
There aren’t too many people who would argue about evolution if it’s definition was confined to changes within species, or rather adaptation. It’s the evolution of one species into a different one that is being challenged. It’s the belief that every living thing has a common ancestor that people disagree with.
Rose on December 13, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Hell is God’s just punishment on sinners. He’s gonna punish murderers, muyoso — that makes sense — and rapists. He’s so good. So just. So holy. He’s gonna punish thieves, and liars, blasphemers, fornicators. Someone who’s had sex out of marriage, and adulterers. See, originally the everlasting fires of hell were prepared for the devil and his fallen angels. Yet those who, like the fallen angels, knowingly or carelessly forsake Jesus to follow Satan will also be assigned to the final hell, and will exist forever with Satan in the lake of fire.
“And the devil that deceived them (deceived people) was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” Revelation 20:10
Notice also that wicked, unrepentant human beings will also be cast into this place of eternal torment.
“Then shall he (Christ) say also unto them (unrepentant people) on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” Matthew 25:41
Revelation 20:10-15 informs us that a time of final judgment is coming for those who choose Satan instead of Christ (there is no other choice). Here, each person who has ever lived and will be judged individually based upon his or her works. This will not be to determine if they are good enough to get into heaven. Those who have accepted Christ are in heaven already and have received their rewards. This judgment will determine the severity of eternal torment for those who did not receive Christ.
“And I saw a great white throne (the final judgment for those who are lost), and him that sat on it (Christ will be the final judge), from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead (the “dead” here are unsaved people, who have died and are in the graves, and now they are brought forth to stand before the judgment throne), small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life (the Book of Life is the book that records everyone who has ever lived or ever will live. When somebody rejects Christ, he/she is blotted out of the book of life): and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”
What a horrible moment in time this will be for so many people. Helpless, no more chances, and without excuse. There will be alot of weeping and pleading at this time, but the time for mercy will be over. Yes, judgment will start with the lake of fire, and no amount of weeping, wailing, or apologies can release you from your chamber of horror. Friend, hell is much worse than anything any living human being can ever imagine. I do not make this statement lightly. I sincerely hope and pray that all of you reading will believe the truth concerning the reality of Hell, and give your life to Jesus, while you are alive. It is only in this lifetime in which you can repent (turn away from sin and receive Jesus).
apacalyps on December 13, 2008 at 5:55 PM
I don’t know where this idea came from, but it is dead wrong. Satan is not going to be rewarding and punishing people in hell for siding with him, lol. When Satan is thrown into the lake of fire he will be too busy burning to rule anything. Satan won’t have any say in the flames of hell — none. Satan is and always has been nothing more than a mere tool of God’s to work and mold man into being more like Christ and bring glory to Himself. Author Norman Grubb wrote a book called, “Yes, I Am, ” and describes this point well. He writes:
Satan himself was God’s created being, of the highest order. In his freedom he rebelled, and founded the kingdom of darkness of which he is god. But he is still forever God’s Satan, and God deliberately used Satan, for instance, to bring Job to the final end of himself (as he uses him in all our lives!). And that is one of the great recorded evidences in the Bible that God is manipulating Satan, not Satan God (Job 1:8 and 2:3). Stretch this out, and (without excusing Satan for his evil designs) we find in all human history we can boldly call Satan “God’s convenient agent.” We have already sought to make plain that if Satan had not first been free to take us the wrong way, we would never now be safely settled in the right way through Christ. Watch carefully, and see God continually using evil for good purposes: “meaning” the evil as the product of our freedom, but using it for His overcoming grace.
apacalyps on December 13, 2008 at 5:56 PM
When you were writing “kind,” did you mean “kind” as in the flood? If one kind was created, how did the mule deer come to look so different from the whitetail? I used to live in the Southwest, mule deer are huge compared to a whitetail.
The problem with evolution, it is not observable over the short human life span.
If all the cats on the planet came from one kind of cat, that means that cats are evolving. Shhh, don’t tell anybody.
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 6:02 PM
But they are still cats.
Rose on December 13, 2008 at 6:03 PM
can they breed and produce offspring?? don’t know, the lions and tigers look a lot different, but they can breed.
if its not observable, its not science, its faith.
don’t know, but I do know there is variability built into species, look at humans from pygmies to andre the giant. as any good designer of a computer program would do, living things are built with a certain amount of variability to survive changing conditions.
what you see as evolution is not evolution, one kind becoming another, but just the variability designed into living things. you see evolution because you want to.
right4life on December 13, 2008 at 6:05 PM
Darwin’s theories don’t address abiogenesis. Evolution may have followed divine intervention and be part of an overall design, but that design would have been in place before the first few organisms.
In a lab experiment Stanley Miller did produce amino acids using water, methane, hydrogen and ammonia demonstrating that the boundary between inorganic and organic matter can be crossed. To my knowledge they haven’t shown a protein or a cell developed by that process, but people are still studying it.
dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 6:07 PM
I do not know what each of you actually believe, but I have met some creation believers that try to deny that a particular animal could look entirely different over several hundred thousand years. To them, the polar bear and the western brown bear or any other bear never had a common ancestor. If one acknowledges that all or some of these bears had a common ancestor, then the theory of evolution is being partly accepted.
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 6:14 PM
LOL.
baldilocks on December 13, 2008 at 6:14 PM
oh please, just as I said, to be logically consistent it has to. evolution assumes a great deal…like life.
you need to keep up with the science, one little problem, oxygen would destroy the results of that experiment.
right4life on December 13, 2008 at 6:16 PM
thats not evolution. evolution is one type of animal becoming another…a bacteria becoming multi-cellular, then evovling eventually into humans.
changes in the genome are part of creationism.
right4life on December 13, 2008 at 6:17 PM
That is exactly what the theory of evolution states.
Several scientists take notes and pass them to the next generation. What i meant was that no individual can observe evolution.
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 6:22 PM
So lions and tigers can have a common ancestor, but lions and bears cannot. That is at least a breakthrough, it represents a partial belief in evolution.
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 6:30 PM
For now. Look at a tiger and look at a cat. Is it really so difficult to believe that they share a common ancestor? And if you can believe that random mutations are responsible for the gross morphological differences between a tiger and a cat – which each have unique structures – then there’s no theoretical limit on what structures hundreds of millions of years of mutations might produce. Why do you act so offended by this, anyway? Yes, it contradicts Genesis. Newsflash: Genesis is a mythological origins story. Noah didn’t put every animal on the ark (what, he just swam over to Australia and grabbed a couple of kangaroos). It really has nothing to do with whether Jesus was resurrected. Your Christianity is safe from common sense.
RightOFLeft on December 13, 2008 at 6:40 PM
It would depend on when the reaction occurred and how much oxygen was present on earth at the time.
Even if it isn’t how amino acids were formed on early earth it is interesting that they were formed in a lab from inorganic matter. It is also interesting that meteorites have contained amino acids, indicating that something like the Miller process could have happened here or elsewhere.
dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 6:49 PM
The reason so many people have rejected Darwinism is that it defies logic. You assume that Darwinism is true and so you stretch every thing to fit your assumption. You have no solid facts. Every time someone asks you or others for proof you give theories. You said this probably happened, or this must have happened, or it could have happened this way. That is not proof.
Rose on December 13, 2008 at 7:07 PM
On the contrary, liberals are always trying to create uptopia via social engineering projects (multiculturalism) whereas conservatives from Burke to Reagan accept the world as it is with all the suffering and pain that implies. Margaret Thatcher (a Christian) said that the facts of life are conservative.
aengus on December 13, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Rose, the theory of evolution is a theory, and it is being investigated every day, refined and adjusted based on new discoveries.
I am going to repeat to you, that if you accept that lions and tigers have a common ancestor, then you have at least partially accepted evolution. A lion is a species of cat and polar bear is a species of bear.
You are aware that horses and donkey’s can cross breed. That’s where mules come from, I ask this because some people do not know that a mule is the, usually, sterile offspring of a male donkey and a female horse. Mate a male horse and a female donkey the offspring is called a hinny, smaller than a mule. Different species of the genus Equus.
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 7:27 PM
Also, one would need to describe the barrier and how it operates to prevent small changes from becoming big changes. If a wide variety of body types of domestic canines can be created from common ancestry and if species such as wolfs, jackals, coyotes, and foxes could share an ancestor what is the mechanism that blocks other physical changes?
dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Let me add that a series of small changes add up to a big change, after about one million years, give or take umpteen thousand.
A donkey has 62 chromosomes; a horse has 64, yet they do create hybrids, hinnys and mules. A branch of donkey could not, after enough time, become so different that it is no longer part of the horse genus? I gather that creationist hang their hats on the belief that it is not possible for that to happen.
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 8:13 PM
It is all speculation. I’ve been hearing the arguments for over thirty years. You are welcome to theorize, but you still do not have a convincing argument other than that you accept this as the only theory.
Rose on December 13, 2008 at 8:21 PM
Logic? Shall we discuss Noah’s Ark. How about Jonah?
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 8:35 PM
I don’t think you could fairly call an amino acid “organic matter.” That term, “organic matter” usually means matter that is living or at least was living. You might be able to call a protein organic matter but I’m not even sure that would be valid.
Amino acids are fairly simply molecules, they are not alive. They don’t eat, or reproduce or swim or have any DNA. I don’t think they are organic matter anymore than H2O is organic matter.
And of course Miller’s brew was only 2% amino acids, both right-handed and left-handed, which he trapped to prevent them from being destroyed by the arc the second time around. The other 98% of what he produced was toxic to life, tar and carbolic acid.
Beyond that, there was no oxygen in his experiment, he knew oxygen would oxidize whatever results he obtained, so he left oxygen out. But the evidence shows that the Earth has always had oxygen. Miller’s experiment was a flop for evolution, it only created problems for evolutionist and solved none.
Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 8:42 PM
Rose, do you accept or even acknowledge the possibility of the Zoroastrian, Hindu, Aztec, Babylonian, Greek, Chinese, Mayan, Apache, Cherokee, or Innuit accounts of creation?
Me thinks the pot is calling the kettle a certain color.
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 8:44 PM
If you are tired of your tax dollars going to teach the evolution religion in public schools, I suggest you go HERE and sign the Academic Freedom Petition. Macro-evolution is a religion, it has absolutely no science to back it up, lets stop this goofy lie from being taught to our kids. It harms kids, it makes them think they have no more value than an earthworm.
Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 8:51 PM
A couple things to keep in mind. Just because some says he’s a Catholic or Protestant doesn’t mean he really is. Anyone who rarely if ever goes to Church, doesn’t believe in the Virgin Birth or credibility of the Canon of Scripture is probably a Christian in name only. They, of course, make the rest of us who actually venture to believe our faith look bad. But they do not represent the true church, just the “I like the idea of occassionally feeling spiritual about myself” church.
Also, a Christian needn’t look any further than what Jesus himself believed. He spoke literally of Jonah and the whale, mentioning it even in terms of the final judgment (escotology is a part of the faith that we cannot divorce ourselves from and even if we decided it were, what can a Christian make of Jesus’ comments? Are we the unbeliever or is He?). Jesus spoke about Adam and Eve, the worldwide flood, creation in very literal terms, Sodom & Gomorrah, you name it… all the things we Christians should believe in but apparently think we known better than Jesus.
Was He just a man of his day, limited by elementary technology and advancements or is he the divine Son of God? Is Scripture reliable or fabley? If it is not reliable, full of tranlational errors and stories to “make a point” rather than telling an accurate story of history as well as revealing truth, we should burn them all now because scripture is nothing more than a deceitful book of tricks concocted for some other feel good purpose to which I cannot determine.
Unfortunately, some “Christians” are more interested in what the world thinks of them than what God thinks of them. They use the errors of the past and Galileo as a typology of the church and will embrace an atheistic concept that has killed hundreds of millions of people like evolution rather than appear child like in our faith and just believe what Jesus believed and taught.
So this is what leads to the disparity in the poll.
Amy Proctor on December 13, 2008 at 8:58 PM
Maxx, Rose, which creation theory shall we teach? Genesis, Tao, Shinto, Inuit, Cherokee, Iroquois, Choctaw, Navajo, Lakota, Hopi, Hawaiian, Hindu, Mayan, Aztec, Zoroastrian, Ancient Greek, Sikh, Babylonian, Sumerian, Egyptian, Incan? All of them? None of them?
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 9:13 PM
Was this addressed to me? And, if so, why?
q2600 on December 13, 2008 at 9:14 PM
I had a philosophy professor in college who said he had studied basically every belief including atheism. He says that Christianity is the most logical. Most of us who have embraced Christianity have not done so lightly. We have studied the scriptures including the evidences and historical proofs. We have studied the history and culture of the people who were alive when Jesus conducted his ministry. We have looked at the creation versus evolution debate. Ultimately it comes down to faith, but not without a foundation of evidence to support it.
Rose on December 13, 2008 at 9:15 PM
How about the one that the facts support? That would be intelligent design…. no need to mention any religion.
Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 9:19 PM
Get this through you head – atheism is not a belief system.
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 9:21 PM
It certainly is. Every system of beliefs is a belief system. Atheism is a worldview and it sits at the base-rock of all you do and how you conduct your life.
Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 9:26 PM
What facts support any kind of belief in inteligent design? The eye example is pure conjecture. You believe it was some kind of pure energy creator; I claim that we don’t know exactly what started all this life stuff.
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 9:26 PM
Weak atheism, perhaps. But strong atheism certainly is.
q2600 on December 13, 2008 at 9:29 PM
Atheists believe that all religions are foolish.Ergo-belief system
thomasaur on December 13, 2008 at 9:32 PM
The obvious and inherit design in all things. I bet you can reccognize intelligent design when you see it. Let’s suppose you were walking down the beach and saw “I love Sara,” carved into the sand.
Would you think that was a produce of random natural forces or would you think that was carved into the sand by a person?
Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 9:41 PM
I see your points. I’ve thought of amino acids as organic to the extent that they have a carbon hydrogen bond, and additionally thought them important since they are the building blocks of proteins. You are right, that they are simple compared to a protein, RNA, DNA, or a cell and generating them alone doesn’t get you from primordial soup to Heidi Klum by simply by adding 4 billion years.
Darwin’s theories work regardless of abiogenesis and would really only function to get one back to the Last Universal Common Ancestor.
dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 9:44 PM
He didn’t see it written in the sand by anyone or anything; must have been random ;P
thomasaur on December 13, 2008 at 9:46 PM
It would depend what language and character set it were written in. One might be more caught up by the sight of a rainbow and believe that it was handcrafted and conveyed a message.
dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 9:50 PM
A long time ago, the PBS Nova series had a presentation about an expedition to Papua New Guinea in the 1930s. The inhabitants of that corner of the island (the Danis I believe) had never seen white men before and had never seen an airplane. They believed that their island was the total limit of the universe. Their first reaction was that the strange visitors were gods. They offered their wives to them.
So, if it is not understood, invoke a creator. Question answered, no more thought, end of debate.
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 9:52 PM
I’m glad you agree. I don’t understand what you mean by the above statement.
Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Sure, a person, but a bodiless, limitless, and unseen creator? No.
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 9:54 PM
It says… “I love sara” … that is the language and the character set it was written in.
Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Let’s do this like a court of law:
Question #1 Did you see this person?
Question #2 If not, are you sure that they had a body?
No?
Then you are speculating as to who was the creator of said message and random chance is the only possible explanation.
thomasaur on December 13, 2008 at 10:03 PM
OK, granted a simple message like that doesn’t mean God wrote it. But DNA is another matter. Life is another matter. All the science and technology of the ages can’t produce it.
Teaching kids that there is design in nature is simply a scientific fact, they can infer from it whatever they like. But lets stop teaching this nonsense that such eloquent and complex designs came about by chance.
Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Just that abiogenesis is more of a chemistry challenge than belonging to the realm of Darwin. His theory of Common Descent would hold true if we could trace ancestry back to 3.5B years ago and identify a proto-bacteria from which everything branched–but were unable to explain how the bacteria got there.
Going back 4.5B and theorizing on the the primordial soup is something outside of Darwin. Perhaps God intervened in the soup, with the bacteria or some point later on. From a religious standpoint the moment human beings were endowed with free will and a conscience then they existed in God’s image and likeness.
dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 10:07 PM
I’d assume a guy wrote it and that Sara was kinda hot. I could be wrong about both assumptions, though. I’d be bringing my intuition and past experiences with me.
dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 10:11 PM
I look at myself and other people, I see only one hand that I can write legibly with, only one hand that can adequately throw a football. Don’t forget human eyesight when compared with other “lower” animals is rather weak. No, I do not see intelligent design. I see animals that are just barely able to cope with their environment; I see adaptation because of natural forces.
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 10:11 PM
dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 10:07 PM
Got it. But I don’t understand the value of evolution as a theory if you have to admit that it can’t explain how life started.
Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Evolution has been 100% DISPROVEN due to population statistics alone.
Why are you atheists still clinging to your beliefs so desperately?
Evolution has been exposed as the fraud that it is..
It’s over.
It’s time for you atheists to find a new religion.
SaintOlaf on December 13, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Not by chance, by the multitide of natural forces, natural selection, or natural rejection. Causing surviving organisms to pass their successful characteristics to the next generation. If you think it is chance, you really do not understand evolution. Scientists who study evolution are not finished. We can speculate about whatever caused primitive life to begin, but whether it is a cosmic accident or a creator, it is speculation.
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 10:20 PM
Now now… you are being disingenuous. Your argument boils down to…. things are less than perfect in my eyes, all things could be better …. and you are equating that with saying you can see no design. You would not look at a shabby building and say it was not designed, no matter how poorly.
Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 10:23 PM
George Carlin did a routine about a sportscaster who said, “I call ‘em like I see ‘em, and If I don’t seen ‘em, I make ‘em up.”
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 10:24 PM
I would assume the same thing… unless I was in San Francisco … and then I would have to give it more thought.
Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Maxx, I’ll have to admit to being flippant and sarcasitc. You caught me.
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 10:26 PM
It explains the change in inherited traits in populations over time. It does a lot, but it doesn’t explain how the universe started or why we have self awareness. Platetectonics doesn’t answer those questions either but it is still a useful theory.
dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 10:27 PM
The funny thing about evolutionists is…they don’t believe that God exists…yet they ALL believe in ALIENS without a doubt!
SaintOlaf on December 13, 2008 at 10:28 PM
This may not apply to you, but its my firm belief that the only reason evolution is defended by so many is that it eliminates God from the equation. Yet, most evolutionist, when pinned down at least, admit that evolution cannot explain the beginning of life. Well, then God is still in the equation, so why not just believe that God created all the kinds of animals and humans like His word teaches?
Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 10:35 PM
I think you should cite a survey to back that up.
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 10:35 PM
I appreciate your honesty.
Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Here are the REAL facts..
Evolution is an unscientific and fraudulent New World Order conspiracy.
Eurasmus Darwin(the founder of evolution theory and Chuck Darwin’s Grandpa) was a 33rd degree Mason and an illuminati member.
Look him up the Freemasons own website.
One of his grandsons(Charles) was the “founder” of evolution theory and his other grandson was the founder of Eugenics.
Thomas Huxley(the main backer of the theory) was also a documented member of the illuminati.
Illuminati members founded and control the smithsonian institute and National Geographic.
They have controlled almost all archaeological digs for the past century.
To this day devout secularists control how grant money is doled out. They blacklist, personally attack and ruin the career of anyone who has valid research that doesn’t tow the secular line.
Wake up!
You have been brainwashed and deceived by people with an anti-God agenda.
SaintOlaf on December 13, 2008 at 10:49 PM
There are lots of scientists who believe in a creator, but they don’t necessarily believe in the strict 6000 year old universe that can be calculated from Genesis.
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 10:51 PM
By the way, the rainbow does convey a message.
Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 10:54 PM
SaintOlaf, congratulations, you have described the longest running conspiracy in modern history.
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 10:56 PM
I think Dawkins overstates his case and the bounds of his expertise. Science requires a materialist approach in order to allow for emperical testing. It seems a fallacy, then, for Dawkins to say “look we’ve demonstrated all this stuff without God, so ergo no God”. OK, well you guys said no God to begin with.
I don’t think ID should be taught in high school biology, but I also think people should understand the limits of science. In a thousand years the science will look much different, but the moral teaching of our religions will be constant.
dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Really? Have I?
I take it you are one of the few but proud people who pretend that the devil does not exist…
SaintOlaf on December 13, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Maxx, you don’t really want to start a discussion about the plausibility of Noah’s Ark do you? I don’t have the patience.
Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Right, but you have to have a lot of “faith” to believe that one kind of animal can evolve into another. More faith than just believing that they were created from the beginning as different kinds.
Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 16 Next »