Blindinglight
Disciple of Chaos
By this statistic, we can conclude that 70% of Republicans are blind fools who reject scientific and archeological evidence to support evolution.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Big surprise. Look what they vote for.By this statistic, we can conclude that 70% of Republicans are blind fools (...)
Meaning that 70% believe that the universe was created in six days?? bleh... How many Republicans are there?
I agree with rocketman and CX. In having taken polls and being confronted with choices, none of which state exactly what I believe or feel and more than one of which state some part of it, sometimes I choose the one that best fits. Sometimes I choose both. Sometimes I choose neither. Either "both" or "neither" could lead to weird poll results.
I have no doubt that the majority of Americans do not fully understand evolutionary theory.
We still routinely on RF get the poster who thinks he can disprove evolution by pointing out that monkeys still exist. But I think that most people understand that evolutionary theory says that all species evolved over a long period of time through changes in pre-existing species, rather than being created de novo.
My guess in this situation is that they are choosing to listen to only one part of each scenario. So they're basically saying "yes, I believe in evolution but God guided it." And I think they just don't care that much about the time frame in which it happened. "It was a really long time."
Big surprise. Look what they vote for.
"The majority of Republicans in the United States do not believe the theory of evolution is true and do not believe that humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. This suggests that when three Republican presidential candidates at a May debate stated they did not believe in evolution, they were generally in sync with the bulk of the rank-and-file Republicans whose nomination they are seeking to obtain. Independents and Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe in the theory of evolution. But even among non-Republicans there appears to be a significant minority who doubt that evolution adequately explains where humans came from.
The data from several recent Gallup studies suggest that Americans' religious behavior is highly correlated with beliefs about evolution. Those who attend church frequently are much less likely to believe in evolution than are those who seldom or never attend. That Republicans tend to be frequent churchgoers helps explain their doubts about evolution.
The data indicate some seeming confusion on the part of Americans on this issue. About a quarter of Americans say they believe both in evolution's explanation that humans evolved over millions of years and in the creationist explanation that humans were created as is about 10,000 years ago."
Source: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847
And more bad news...
http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm
Why? There is much proof that shows a young earth is impossible. There have been human artifacts that are abit older than 70,000 years old found. Along with the fossil records, fossil fuels, and other things show a young earth to be a theory based on falicy.Well I certainly believe the earth is young so I I guess I am YEC.
Bravo mate.Why? There is much proof that shows a young earth is impossible. There have been human artifacts that are abit older than 70,000 years old found. Along with the fossil records, fossil fuels, and other things show a young earth to be a theory based on falicy.
If the above is true i for one welcome the fact that the chinese are starting to take over things.
I just hope its not contagious.
In britain belief in creationism is very rare, but then i think its safe to say we are not as religious a country.
The american comedian Bill Hicks hit the nail on the head where these nut jobs are concerned.
Why? There is much proof that shows a young earth is impossible. There have been human artifacts that are abit older than 70,000 years old found. Along with the fossil records, fossil fuels, and other things show a young earth to be a theory based on falicy.
A young earth, replete with fossils, indicates a deceptive God. How droll.Ummm, a young earth is only impossible if you assume everything was created in a simple, original state.
Why? There is much proof that shows a young earth is impossible. There have been human artifacts that are abit older than 70,000 years old found. Along with the fossil records, fossil fuels, and other things show a young earth to be a theory based on falicy.
1) I do not welcome any prospects of China "taking over things", and here's why:
China mandates atheism as an authoritarian, statist view.
Liberty - "the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views"
Religion is bunk...but only mankind's inalienable liberties, and the right to freely think for ourselves will eventually overcome our species' proclivities in embracing superstition, supernaturalism, and theistic claims/beliefs as the preferred examination/explanation of cause/effect outcomes/circumstances that yet elude contemporary scientific understanding/naturalistic explanation.
2) I do not consider YEC's or other "creationists" to be "nut jobs". Fear and ignorance are far more influential factors upon the human psyche, and it's not "crazy" to hope that one's personal existence (ultimately) serves a "greater", or more lasting "purpose".
Think about it. How puny, how insignificant, how inconsequential is our impact upon the cosmos as a whole? One stray comet or asteroid, and--*poof*--humankind is but another unrecorded footnote in the unrepentant and inexorable course of the emotionless cosmos
maybe nut jobs isnt the right english, but its laughable to take these people seriously, as for china no country is perfect and it will be a good twenty years before they form joint superpowerdom with the russians but that is what the future hold as far as the present course of things is growing.
America and the EEC are going to be more and more reduced as time goes on.
China has its problems mainly stemming from a communist past but thats changing very very fast, maybe too fast.
In twenty to twenty five years they will take over leadership in world affairs and personally i think they will make a better job of it than we have in the west.
Britain had its turn, Americas having its turn and next its Chinas turn it should be pretty interesting to witness should i live that long.
As for the young earth notion ive yet to see, hear or read a credible peice of evidence to support this.
A bit like weapons of mass destruction in iraq
Who says they are that old? There are assumptions made when things are dated. There is also evidence that the earth cannot be very old at all, but it is ignored.
None at all - but i can read and understand.Whats your science background?
The assumption is made that the enviorment on earth has always been similar but we believe that pre-flood earth had a very different enviroment which would effect the carbon dating of anything pre-flood - or so the scientists (young earth) say.There are margins for error it is true but the length of time the earth has been around is perfectly proven to be many thousands of times that of what the young earth brigade claim.
The problem with that is you can't affect the nuclei of the radioactive elements. It is relatively constant no matter what you do to it.The assumption is made that the enviorment on earth has always been similar but we believe that pre-flood earth had a very different enviroment which would effect the carbon dating of anything pre-flood - or so the scientists (young earth) say.
The creationists saying the atomic "clock" has been altered just like to make up claims and have no evidence supporting their claims.
None at all - but i can read and understand.
The assumption is made that the enviorment on earth has always been similar but we believe that pre-flood earth had a very different enviroment which would effect the carbon dating of anything pre-flood - or so the scientists (young earth) say.
I do not deny there could been a flood at one time or other in noahs day but theres no evidence that it was a world wide occurance.
Geo science is very advanced these days and it would have been noticed.
If the science was there i would happily agree with the young earth theory but it just isnt.
And if god told noah to take two of everything why leave out the dinosaurs as they must surely have been about during his day if the young earth theory is correct.
I suspect it was a regional flood and nothing more.
If there was a world wide flood the soil core samples would tell us.
The pure science of a young earth just doesnt exist.
My only deity in this world is science and if science says no its a no.
None at all - but i can read and understand.
Carbon dating, and other forms of half life dating have proven the earth is much older than 6000 - 10000 years old. There is not an ounce of evidence to support a young earth theory.Who says they are that old? There are assumptions made when things are dated. There is also evidence that the earth cannot be very old at all, but it is ignored.