Finally! More Young Americans Accept Evolution than Believe in Creationism...

[YmirGF]

Some people have an overwhelming desire to believe that all was designed by a benevolent being.
I have an overwhelming ignorance of things I can't observe.
Just different perspectives.

What can I say, RevoltingOne? I'm a fan of Chaos Theory.

 

[Revoltingest]

What can I say, RevoltingOne? I'm a fan of Chaos Theory.

For some fun, I asked my helper what he thought of a majority of young folk believing the TOE.
He said it shows....
- Society is heading down the tubes.
- Evolution leads to evil such as Nazis.
- It's the result of liberal propaganda.
- Commies.
- Satan's influence.

 

[YmirGF]

For some fun, I asked my helper what he thought of a majority of young folk believing the TOE.
He said it shows....
- Society is heading down the tubes.
- Evolution leads to evil such as Nazis.
- It's the result of liberal propaganda.
- Commies.
- Satan's influence.

I didn't know your helper was Dr. Ben Carson. He seems like such a nice man. Who knew?

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't know your helper was Dr. Ben Carson. He seems like such a nice man. Who knew?

Ben is one sane individual compared to my guy.
We have some odd talks.

 

[outhouse]

Is evolution denial going the way of the dinosaurs? Why or why not?

yes.

because we are attacking the children with open minds, using education and knowledge


they can see he mythology for what I is, and less of these children were brainwashed since birth


Some older people just refuse facts no matter how well presented, impossible to teach or debate with

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Tis a shame I think that people do not accept science. But the belief of evolution is not essential to get one through life. A believer's first allegiance is with God; and if they dismiss evolution, it is not the end of the world, just a misunderstanding of what the text is showing.
So it matters not either way; though i wonder if more will fall from their faith from a failure to understand the first page of their text.

Reminds me of when Sherlock Holmes revealed to Watson that he had no idea about what the moon did because it made absolutely no difference in his life. As a belief, Creationism is rather quiet benign, only becoming a real issue when people try to enforce it as science. My estimation that for all but a few people, evolution or Creationism, it doesn't really matter because their lives are going to be exactly the same.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Ben is one sane individual compared to my guy.

I don't know about that. Trump doesn't have prison making guys gay or grain-storing pyramids. But, then again, Trump is a birther and he thought it would be a good idea to sue a comedian.

 

[Aset's Flames]

For the first time, more young Americans accept evolution than believe in creationism. Older people, however, still believe in some form of creationism by a wide margin.



Please discuss. Is evolution denial going the way of the dinosaurs? Why or why not?

It's has always been slow, but reason usually truimps over faith.

I think inthe modern era, the education and easy access to information probably accelerated this.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know about that. Trump doesn't have prison making guys gay or grain-storing pyramids. But, then again, Trump is a birther and he thought it would be a good idea to sue a comedian.

Comics are the natural enemies of politicians.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2...augh-factory-comedians-for-making-fun-of-her/

 

[Robert.Evans]

Why?
Why does it have to be created?
By the same logic the Big Bang could be the first cause.

The big bang can't be the first cause as the BB comes from something. Whatever that ultimate source is, it must be unchanging at source.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Seeing design everywhere is what anthropomorphic projection is all about.

Doesn't alter the fact that you see design everywhere.

 

[Robert.Evans]

yes.

because we are attacking the children with open minds, using education and knowledge


they can see he mythology for what I is, and less of these children were brainwashed since birth


Some older people just refuse facts no matter how well presented, impossible to teach or debate with

We could say that to the theologians who refuse to accept scripture also and yet debate from it from a purely historical point of view couldn't we.

 

[Revoltingest]

The big bang can't be the first cause as the BB comes from something. Whatever that ultimate source is, it must be unchanging at source.

Why must a source be unchanging?

Doesn't alter the fact that you see design everywhere.

Where some see design which is from a designer,
I see metaphorical design which is from a process.

 

[Robert.Evans]

.

Why must a source be unchanging?

It suggests time if it is changing and also begs the question, why has it taken so long to get to this point. If of course "this point" is merely one of many "points" then that is fine.
It must also be simplistic as its own self. Complex things require explanations where as simple singularities do not, or at least, to us they do not.
Necessity says that something has to be. The logic of man says that intelligence is then a better answer than blind chance.

Where some see design which is from a designer,
I see metaphorical design which is from a process.

That's fine... but it's still design, which was my point. That is what we see. Now we might ask, should we ignore that evidence. And considering that evolution is accepted as true, we might then ask how we can get design to show through a process that is supposed to have no direction in it. There must be parameters after all, and we might ask how they might exist to produce all that we see.

 

[metis]

The basic concept of evolution is just plain old common sense-- all material things change over time, and genes are material things. Whether there was any deity behind it, I cannot say because it's well beyond my pay-grade.

 

[Altfish]

The big bang can't be the first cause as the BB comes from something. Whatever that ultimate source is, it must be unchanging at source.

Why?

 

[Revoltingest]

.
It suggests time if it is changing and also begs the question, why has it taken so long to get to this point. If of course "this point" is merely one of many "points" then that is fine.

To "beg a question" is used differently.
Ref.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
It would be better to say "raise the question".
I had to do that.....it's a pet peeve.

Anyway, I'm not concerned with things taking a long time.
We live on an old planet in a very old universe.
I'm in no hurry.

It must also be simplistic as its own self. Complex things require explanations where as simple singularities do not, or at least, to us they do not.
Necessity says that something has to be. The logic of man says that intelligence is then a better answer than blind chance.

That's quite a string of postulates.
I don't see that they must be.
Even if I bought them, I don't see the logic behind the conclusion.

That's fine... but it's still design, which was my point.

Two different things are not made the same just because one word ("design") which describes them has both strict & metaphorical uses.
This would be the metaphorical fallacy.

That is what we see. Now we might ask, should we ignore that evidence. And considering that evolution is accepted as true, we might then ask how we can get design to show through a process that is supposed to have no direction in it. There must be parameters after all, and we might ask how they might exist to produce all that we see.

As you use it, "direction", just describes an emergent property of a stochastic system.
No intelligence is needed to explain the former resulting from the latter.

 

[Revoltingest]

The basic concept of evolution is just plain old common sense-- all material things change over time, and genes are material things. Whether there was any deity behind it, I cannot say because it's well beyond my pay-grade.

You should just stick to reading my posts.
Evolution is more than just change over time.
I recommend just quoting my posts, & adding "Ditto!".
I promise not to call you a "dittohead".

 

[Robert.Evans]

Why?

Because the change at source is what birthed us. And whatever is the ultimate beginning it must be simplistic is itself, is must be so simplistic as to us, to not seem to exist. It is the realisation of self that brings about consciousness and then us. Complexity must be explained; that is what we do with evolution, atoms, planet and star formation, the big bang, the poss multiverse string theory etc.

 

[Robert.Evans]

To "beg a question" is used differently.
Ref.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
It would be better to say "raise the question".
I had to do that.....it's a pet peeve.

What's the name of you pet peeve?
You're quite clever when you get going, aren't you. Now no blushing! I kinda think that I knew that, and I kinda thought I had worded it right to show that but perhaps I didn't; either way, it is always nice to learn or have things clarified.

Anyway, I'm not concerned with things taking a long time.
We live on an old planet in a very old universe.
I'm in no hurry.

That's quite a string of postulates.
I don't see that they must be.
Even if I bought them, I don't see the logic behind the conclusion.

Well for one, complex things need explanation. They just do. No one looks at anything complex and assumes it just is that way. I would apply that to God, though I know it is not the usual take. I think the Origin was, and still is, simplistic, and what evolved and separated from that is eventually us. We are that Origin, the thoughts, emotions etc.

Two different things are not made the same just because one word ("design") which describes them has both strict & metaphorical uses.
This would be the metaphorical fallacy.

design is design to me. I am not arguing who designed what or how.

As you use it, "direction", just describes an emergent property of a stochastic system.
No intelligence is needed to explain the former resulting from the latter.

If you mean evolution needs no form of intelligence involved, I think you are wrong, drastically wrong. I can't see blind chance acting in such positive ways on blind matter. Sure, I see that is how we see it now, but that is because at our level, that is what we are, matter. But I don't see that in its smallest level, and I certainly think that intelligence is a more suitable answer to complex problems than luck. It is easy to ignore such though when you can't see the intelligence however, just as evolutionists ignore the design. That is what we are taught to do now: the look of design is just a bi-product. But I don't think so. It is sutble I know, and clever, as it leaves enough on the table to convince both sides, believers and unbelivers, that they are right.