New Poll: Support For Creationism Falls To Record Low

300px-god2-sistine_chapelA new poll from Gallup shows a sharp decline in Americans who believe in creationism and specifically the “Young Earth” view that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.  Only 38 percent of those polled now embrace creationism while 57 percent accept the theory of evolution as well as scientific data uniformly showing life existed millions of years ago.

Notably, many Christians are now accepting evolution and incorporating the fact of evolution into their religious beliefs. It is an interesting poll given our prior discussion of how the massive Noah’s Ark exhibit has attracted fewer viewers than anticipated.

In 2012, 46% in Gallup’s 2012 survey still supported creationsim.

With new dinosaur bones dates to 132 million years old and even 10,000 year old mashed potatoes, the Young Earth view grows more and more difficult to maintain on scientific grounds.

203 thoughts on “New Poll: Support For Creationism Falls To Record Low”

  1. The Fine Tuned Universe fool cannot formulate a proper question.

    1. Davey, you never did answer this little problem !, again the (Horizon Problem) actually it’s a big one. Oh ya, then there are the SNRs and high redshift quasars. The Big Dud needs the Inflation theory to carry the lie. Dave, what BLIND FAITH YOUR RELIGION HAS.


      1. As I mentioned much earlier on this thread, fool, read Poplawski’s papers.

        1. Davey, that interesting reading, but it’s out side of the realm of Science. It’s not Testable, it’s not Repeatable, nor is it Observable or Falsifiable. Davey, we can only debate from what we Do Know, Not from what we Don’t Know. You are a Fool David B. Benson ! and you don’t if know it ! . Davey, we only have two choices, Design or Random Chance !, What does the Universe show ?. Probability would Favor Design, Observation would Favor Design, Testable would Favor Design. Strike 3 Random Chance you’re Out. Question Davey, Who is the Designer ?. (In The Beginning Information) It`s undeniable Davey ! Thanks for coming out !.

          1. Well, that certainly isn’t science.

            Poplawski offers an alternative to the multiverse. The reasoning is quite good, being based on an important extension to General Relativity.

            For those preferring The Designer, I have to ask what designed The Designer? This leads to an infinite regress.

            Poplawski style gives the far simpler unending cosmos.

            Take your pick.

            1. David Benson – didn’t we go through this the other day. The original creator/designer is the Uncaused Cause. It appears you were not paying attention, even though we discussed this for at least an hour. 😉

              1. But I can posit a Designer which designed your “original creator”.

                Hence no first one.

                Learn some ordinal arithmetic.

                1. David Benson – what part of Uncaused Cause do you not understand? Come on, David, you are more educated than that. 😉

                  1. I understand that, I just don’t agree as I have previously explained.

            2. Are you 12, the old who created god argument. One can alwayse find a contradiction in anything based simply on an unseen angle. If you choose to not believe in a creator thats fine though your arguments are no more valid than the assertion that you dont exist. Logically you cannot say without doubt that you actually exist. Every experience of your life has been nothing more than stimuli picked up by receptors, you have no finite proof that anything around you at any time is actually true or real including your own personal reality. My point is that your denial of design is everybit as unsupported as my assertion that you dont exist. To make it even worse mathematically the probability of the atheist notion of a random accident has begun to struggled to hold support even in the scientific community with even agnostics like Stephen hawking reluctantly having to admid the painfully unlikely reality of the theory checking out. The thing that confuses me the most is why those who deny design are so commited to prove themselves right, its as if your really trying to convince yourselves. Science is not far from religion. Scientific scripture is rewritten nearly every century upon the unvailing of previously unseen angles. Your beliefs require faith just as the religions of the world, your god is science.

  2. I have a question for anyone who wants to weigh in on it ( because I don’t know the answer).
    Is there a general consensus among scientists that the universe began about 15 Billion years ago?
    That is Stephen Hawking’s theory as I understand it….but I don’t know if there is a strong consensus of physicists who are “on board” with the Hawking’s scenario, or if it is widely contested by competing theories.

    1. It isn’t Hawking’s theory, but all the evidence points to some form of Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago.

      1. Dave, little problem again (Horizon Problem) actually it’s a big one. Oh ya, then there are the SNRs and high redshift quasars. The Big Dud needs the Inflation theory to carry the lie. Dave, what BLIND FAITH YOUR RELIGION HAS.

              1. David Benson – good for you. I never had a nickname and it is had to shorten Paul. 😉

          1. Sorry David, but I’m nobody’s fool. David, why is it that Richard Dawkins would not want to live in a Atheistic society.

          2. David, I see you never replied to other problems or are we to busy goggling a-theist websites.

    2. Science is not based on a vote, science is not based on a consensus of what most think. Its not a popularity contest. Science is based on tested knowledge and the scientific method. You can either build proof within a reasonable doubt or you cannot. Even at that point it is not impossible for any fact or accepted theory to be proven wrong in time due to new found information which happens routinely in the scientific reality. I personally believe the universe is far older than what fundamental religious beliefs claim though i also believe in creationism. Science is one of mans greatest tools though it is not something to be deified and held as infallible. Science should also not be trivialized by being held to a vote or popular opinion.

      1. We know the earth is not billion years old, because empirical science and the evidence shows that the earth is young. C-14 what has a half live of 5,568 years, which is being found through out the whole geological column, along with original bio-material and soft tissue. Some of the soft tissue has fragmented DNA. Genetic entropy shows a loss of information. Mutations are a loss of genetic information not a gain of information as evolutionism would have us to believe. The more we find out through empirical science, the more evolutionism fails the facts and creation fits the facts. When ever the layer, rock or fossil within that layer is tested with the many known dating methods, we do not get consistent dates. The assumptions used in radiometric dating are many. The lava flow rate of Jupiter’s moon IO show thousands of years, not billions. Gravitational pull can’t account for that much temperature. James you sound like a well read man and if I could suggest for you, to have another look all the evidence for a young-earth. God always shows His Hand.

  3. Times are given by real numbers, both positive and negative; call the collection of all times T. A “Cause” would have to preceed all times. Write C for Cause to note that C is less than t for all times t in T. That is exactly the property that mathematicians use to define “negative infinity”.

    The problem is that one cannot do sensible arithmetic with the negative infinity C and so the physical equations describing the evolution of the universe leave it out.

    By Ockham’s Razor in science one leaves out unnecessary hypotheses. Here, an Uncaused Cause is unnecessary and not part of science. Instead, the cosmos has always been evolving, no matter how unpalatable this truth is to your conceptions, which may need revision to accord with scientific understanding.

    1. David – even in science, nothing must come from something, hence the Uncaused Cause. It always was and it always will be.

      1. Nope. You fail, repeatedly, to understand infinity. I recommend some serious study of mathematics rather than intransigence.

        1. It was agnostic mathematicians and physicists that arrived at the argument being made here. Did they fail to understand as well? As unpalatable as this would be to theyre own conceptions?. The only point im trying to make is that we dont know. I dont know, you dont know, and they dont know. Most human failures root in over confidence and arrogance. Man has been arguing over the concept of truth since the beginning. Countless have claimed to know the truth and countless conflicts have been played out in the name of the truth, yet here we are thousands of years down the road arguing about the truth. It is as futile as your misplaced confidence in your own conceptions. Knowledge and understanding cannot grow if it remains leashed to the limitations of what we want it to be. In truth we are most likely all wrong in ways and right in others. 1000 years from now people will be sitting around engaged in conversations and debates about the truth, they will most likely consider the understanding of our time trivial and mock it as a testament to their own arrogance.

  4. Paul Schulte still fails to understand infinity. He posits a “zero point of creation”. Presumably there is nothing before then.

    I can, and do, posit that every real number designates a time. Before the “zero point” the numbers are negative, that is all. Using older terms, positive times are A.D. and negative times are B.C.

    Either there was a first time or there was not. Logic alone excludes neither case. But the physics of a cosmos without beginning or end is much easier to formulate and comprehend.

    1. David Benson – you are failing to see what sets your infinity in motion, because there is and always will be motion. I call it the Uncaused Cause, you can call it the flying spaghetti monster. Some being did it. Something much more power than you and me.

      1. Not for infinity, but for a finite time ago there might have been a Cause. Alternatively, there was no Cause, but an always evolving cosmos. Either speculation is logically possible. However, the latter makes for simpler physics and also metaphysics. You choose, but do not insist that either alternative is the only logically possible one.

        1. David Benson – I am with St. Augustine who said that regardless of how many gods back you had to go through, there would finally be an Uncaused Caused. To me, this is perfectly logical.

          1. St. Augustine failed to understand infinity.

            Also the conservation of mass-energy, as
            E=m×c×c, from Einstein’s equivalence principle.

        1. David – my friend, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. Neither of us seems willing to move from his position.

  5. The truth is we really don’t know how or when Earth was created and life here began. The “science” of yesterday has been debunked by the “science” of today. And we should expect that the “science” of today will, in time, be debunked by the “science” of tomorrow.

    To show you how ridiculous modern “science” can be, only a few short years ago, they told us that saturated fats, like those in butter, were dangerous to our health and would “clog” our arteries; and they also told us how wonderful margarine was for our health. (Many still believe this canard that was perpetrated by the food industry, the drug companies, the medical establishment, and the government that serves their interests.) Today, we know the very opposite is true.

    Woody Allen had some fun with the unreliability of “science” in his comedy “Sleeper” from the 1970s. The film was way ahead of its time in its vision of what the future of our world will look like. (The premise of the film is that Woody Allen’s character is preserved in the 1970s through cryogenics and he wakes up hundreds of years later.) The funny thing is that at the time, nonfat foods were thought to be the healthy ones, having replaced the fatty ones that were thought to be unhealthy. The movie also introduced the public to the concept of cloning for the first time. And then, there’s the vision that Leftism will ultimately control everything through the creation of a Metropolis-type government (per the Fritz Lang silent movie). Anyway, here’s a clip about the “science” of today versus the “science” of tomorrow:

    1. We do know how and when Terra was created. Not all sciences are equally advanced.

  6. Paul Schulte doesn’t understand infinity, as in “always”. Rather than continue off in the narrow gutter format, I will start over here.

    That which has existed forever has no beginning, hence no Cause. It just is, no matter how unpalatable that might seem. So a multiverse concept has no origin nor any reason for being; it just is.

    In attempting to describe the universe and all within it, we look at the observations and apply reason. One way that reason leads is to a perpetual multiverse; there is neither a beginning, so no Cause, nor an answer as to why; it just is.

    1. David Benson – I posit that even your infinity needs an Uncaused Cause. Matter can be neither created or destroyed. So ….. where did it come from?

      1. Briefly, it was always there.

        Always means no matter how far in the past one considers, there is infinitely more of the past yet to go…

        1. David Benson – regardless of how far back you go into infinity, there is a starting point. A point zero of creation and at that point is the Uncaused Cause

          1. >Cape Cod Skeptic – sickle cell does make you immune to malaria, but it has it down sides. You have to have periodic blood transfusions, you are constantly tired, poor lung quality, difficult pregnancies, etc. It is considered a blood disease.

            I’m responding here, because I find no reply button to your comment downline in my browser.

            You still haven’t completely read my posts or the articles and you seem not to understand what it means to have two mutated copies of a gene (homozygous) vs. one mutated copy of a gene (heterozygous). Being a carrier (heterozygous) means you are resistant to malaria (and therefore you live longer, so you can reproduce) but you don’t suffer the adverse consequences of sickle-cell anemia (which is by definition, a BENEFIT). ( Read the genetics section.)

            This blog entry is about increased belief in evolution in the US; evolution describes how species came to be on the planet, and is concerned with reproductive success. There is no mandate for individuals who reach reproductive maturity to be disease-free. But I am prompted to ask all the believers here, how do you ascribe all the terrible diseases we experience to a benevolent God? Just part of the mystery of not knowing God’s plan?

            1. Cape Cod Skeptic – I am agnostic and my god does not care one way or the other about disease, or anything else.

            2. CCS, You missed the point, It’s a Loss of genetic information, Mutations are never a gain of new genetic information. Mutations are not a mechanism for evolution to change species one to another species. Read your bible.

    2. Is it possible that the truth might not conform with what we percieve as logical, that our “conceptions” might be intangible and crude? Is it possible that we have a long way to go before we achieve understanding? Is it possible that the marvels of today might one day be looked upon as primative as we view the wheel? Is it not true that we have alwayse valued our understanding far beyond its true reach? When you perceive something as finite you sever it from growth and restrict its evolution. It is the greatest flaw of man and the greatest burdon to the growth of understanding. Science has become contaminated with advocates of the finite truth who cripple us all with tall tales arrogance and absolutes. Knowledge will continue to evolve and it will surely leave us all behind in the crude past of failed ideology.

  7. 38%+57%=95%. So are the remaining 5%, one in twenty, unthinking fence sitters?

    1. Perhaps they are the leaders and the only one’s who are ‘thinking.’

  8. I went to a Catholic high school. In my junior year the priest who ran our religion class had us conduct a symposium on evolution. He had us break down into groups of 6. Each group had a different evolutionary scientist or researcher who did work on the theory of evolution. One group had Charles Darwin for example. At no time did the priest who ran this religion class try to discredit any of the evolutionary theorist. He celebrated mass every day, and he wanted to have his students think and use reason to understand the world they lived in.

    1. Independent Bob – in my years as a Catholic never had anyone knock evolution.

  9. One thing I wonder is, what if we don’t find life anywhere else in our solar system??? Because by the time I go to get a star in my crown, I am sure we will have space stations on Mars and the Moon. And probably AI Probes on Titan, and elsewhere. What if there is no life anywhere but here?

    What if we never see any sign of life anywhere else in the galaxy???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. But Squeeky, what if there was life elsewhere in the galaxy and they turned out to be…LIBERALS?!!!

    2. Klaatu barada nikto translates to “Of course we have universal healthcare! We’re not savages!”

    3. From Eugene Koonin’s “The Logic of Chance” one concludes that the only life in the universe is here on Terra.

  10. That 38% is that high amazes me.


    The Argument for Atheism

    It appears to be the case. Truth matters.


    Prayer to God (if such God there be): Make your revelation to all humankind at once right now. After this revelation no two human beings will differ about religion. Ever.

    1. Prayer to God (if such God there be): Make your revelation to all humankind at once right now.

      If God laughs, he is laughing right now.

      I Sent You a Rowboat
      A very religious man was once caught in rising floodwaters. He climbed onto the roof of his house and trusted God to rescue him. A neighbour came by in a canoe and said, “The waters will soon be above your house. Hop in and we’ll paddle to safety.”

      “No thanks” replied the religious man. “I’ve prayed to God and I’m sure he will save me”

      A short time later the police came by in a boat. “The waters will soon be above your house. Hop in and we’ll take you to safety.”

      “No thanks” replied the religious man. “I’ve prayed to God and I’m sure he will save me”

      A little time later a rescue services helicopter hovered overhead, let down a rope ladder and said. “The waters will soon be above your house. Climb the ladder and we’ll fly you to safety.”

      “No thanks” replied the religious man. “I’ve prayed to God and I’m sure he will save me”

      All this time the floodwaters continued to rise, until soon they reached above the roof and the religious man drowned. When he arrived at heaven he demanded an audience with God. Ushered into God’s throne room he said, “Lord, why am I here in heaven? I prayed for you to save me, I trusted you to save me from that flood.”

      “Yes you did my child” replied the Lord. “And I sent you a canoe, a boat and a helicopter. But you never got in.”

  11. Most Christians that I know believe that God created all of the systems governing our universe – physics, mathematics, and evolution. That does not mean that they believe that the Creation story was literal, that Eve literally came from a rib from Adam. The Bible is allegorical, and it’s not a science book. Believing in gravity does not shake anyone’s faith. Why would evolution? Why would the story of Creation be literal, when any modern explanation of science would have resulted in the speaker being instantly stoned to death? Science is not the Book’s purpose.

    We now know that evolution speeds up when exposed to environmental pressure. There are upticks or explosions in genetic diversity at different periods in the fossil record.

    How, for instance, would random genetic mutations cause the evolution of terrestrial limbs to flippers in pinnipeds? Lamarck’s Theory of Acquired Characterists was entirely debunked in favored of Darwin’s evolution. Lamarck believed that a giraffe’s neck would stretch throughout its lifetime as it tried to reach acacia leaves, and that its offspring would start out with a longer neck, and so on until we get our modern giraffe. Of course that is not how evolution occurs. And yet, there appears to be some way that genes can respond to need.

    One can see how light and dark moths would be selected through the natural range of colors in response to the soot produced by the Industrial Revolution. But how could flippers be completely random? That would depend on the equivalent of Mermaid Syndrome spontaneously popping up in a population that just happened to be near water, and infiltrating the entire gene pool.

    Life seems to have been designed to be adaptive to change under certain circumstances. What a beautiful and compassionate design. Perhaps the ability of life to change its form and adapt was the intent of our Creator. And believing in a Creator does not mean that anyone doesn’t believe in Science. It is true that there are those who take the Bible literally and forego science. But that approach has never made sense to me. To each their own, I suppose.

    So take it with a grain of salt when you hear that someone believes in “Creationism” or “Intelligent Design.” In their minds, it may mean that they just believe that God made everything including evolution. Those terms mean different things to different people. And polls often fail to take that into account or offer choices that exactly match the beliefs of the respondees.

    1. Karen S, I find that your comments are typically well reasoned and thoughtful, but IMHO this one just muddies the waters. Evolution is a process in which new species are developed via many biological processes including natural selection, genetic mutations/drift, and hybridization. The Peppered Moth observations of the 1950s do not discount the appearance of flippers in pinnipeds. It is easy to see genetic drift in real time in species with short lifespans (such as plants, single-celled organisms, insects, rodents, etc.); harder in species with longer lifespans. Nevertheless, with all species on the planet, heritable genetic mutations may confer a selective reproductive advantage in the offspring, such as increased attractiveness to the opposite sex, increased ability to forage, increased resistance to heat or cold, etc. The subtle changes (which resulted from random genetic mutations) in limb structure and function that resulted in flippers in modern-day pinnipeds (and other cetaceans) started occurring over 50 million years ago. I can respect those who believe a higher power created evolution, but we all should take care to present the science as accurately as possible.

      1. Necessary correction: Pinnipeds are not cetaceans; I wrote the parenthetical too quickly and did not edit before sending. Both groups branched off the phylogenetic tree 50 mya from a terrestrial ancestor. My apologies for any confusion.

              1. CCS, Funny how Genetic Entropy is not a debate among the Ph.D. Geneticists, because they know it’s a Fact. Scieniticamerican would be right up there with CNN. How you make me laugh. LOL.

                1. FTU – today’s scientific fact is tomorrow’s scientific fraud.

                2. Funny how when you google “genetic entropy” all you get are creationist websites.

                  Some people clearly do not like to be educated against their will.

                  1. Evolutionism can’t tell us what is right or wrong. Who decides what is right and what is wrong. The Nazi in the Nurnberg trials, didn’t think they where doing anything wrong. All they where doing, was taking Social Darwinism to the finite point in creating the “Übermensch”. The West had no right to charge them with crimes against humanity, as they were practising Eugenics in the 20’s and 30’s. I would rather have a God fearing government in power, rather than a left-winged government that embraces (Euthanasia). If evolutionism is true, then what is stopping man from using humans, for food, fuel or fertilizer, if we believe we are nothing more than animals, as we already use animals for this. When resources gets scarce, evolutionism produces the greatest atrocities, Moa, Stalin. Pol-Pot, Hitler. All staunch Darwinist. That’s why Richard Dawkins would never want to live in a true atheistic society. Here is some FACTs for you, but you will only want to BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE.

                    1. FTU, you’re clearly in the weeds.
                      Evolution is not a cult or a religion, and it is not social Darwinism.
                      BTW, morality predates the advent of religion on this planet.

                      >That’s why Richard Dawkins would never want to live in a true atheistic society.
                      Who cares??????

                      >Moa, Stalin. Pol-Pot, Hitler. All staunch Darwinist.
                      No evidence provided, and you’ve messed up the old chestnut creationist attack, anyway.
                      The standard script is to say: “All staunch Atheist.”

                      But as a matter of FACT:
                      Stalin was raised in the Orthodox Christian church and spent 5 years in a Greek seminary.
                      Hitler was raised Catholic and even refers to his work against the Jews as “fighting for the work of the Lord.”
                      Pol Pot: educated in a Buddhist monastery and Catholic school in his native country; attended school in Paris; as leader of Khmer Rouge, mandated atheism countrywide.
                      Mao Zedong: raised in the Buddhist tradition, exposed to Catholicism, but his embrace of Communism apparently superseded his early religious exposure

                      Side note: Stalin’s support of Lysenkoism argues strongly against his being a Darwinist.

                      All these men were delusional, power hungry despots, who killed millions of their own countrymen. Three were Communists, one a Nazi. It seems a stretch to me to attribute their atrocities to atheism when so many other personal failings and psychological/intellectual defects serve much better.

                      Tell me, were King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella Darwinists too?
                      Did they conduct the Inquisitions because of “scarce resources”?

                  2. CCS, You probably believe in global warming to, CCS, do you the difference between Education and Wisdom. Education is indoctrination ( you can be indoctrinated into any lie ) Wisdom is knowing the Truth and how to use it wisely. I believe you to be some what Educated.

                    1. ccs, if you believe that C02 is a problem. Then you are Indoctrinated into the Lie. Enjoy Global Warming Cult.

                  3. CCS- Read Moa, Stalin, Hitler and Pol-Pot. then get back to me. They all believed there was no God and that made the accountable to know one, but themselves. Evolutionism is Not a Fact. Mutations are a loss of genetic information, You really need to talk to the research Ph. D. Geneticists. Name one beneficial mutation. Name one transitional fossil, phone all the major fossil museums around the world and ask them if they have a transitional fossil, then asks the to put in written so it can be PEER REVEIWED.

                    1. >Mutations are a loss of genetic information, You really need to talk to the research Ph. D. Geneticists.
                      You’re stuck in an infinite loop, circling back to John Sanford again and again.
                      As I already have a Ph.D. in Toxicology and my research was on heritable mutagenic changes in mammalian cells, I believe I’ll decline your very kind suggestion.

                      >Name one beneficial mutation:
                      Have you really never heard of sickle-cell?

                      I could go on and on, but I’m bored.

                      Free science class is over; you call about the fossils, since you’re so obsessed.

                    2. Cape Cod Skeptic – I would not call sickle-cell beneficial. It has both an upside and a downside.

                    3. Paul, it is a loss of information, it’s not a gain of new information. The DNA is coded in languages and information that uses a communication system, this is all non molecular. The RNA is reading off the DNA, the Proteins is reading off the RNA and DNA. They are reading off each other with many different languages. Wake up ! people, this can’t happen by Chance. Are you to Blind to see Design. Or is it just being willingly ignorant.

                    4. Sorry, Paul I thought I was responding to CCS. I just finished back to back lectures.

                    5. Paul, did you read the article to which I linked? It clearly lays out the body of evidence showing that certain genetic mutations confer resistance to malaria. Being heterozygous (having one copy of the mutated gene) rather than homozygous (having two copies of the gene, and therefore suffering from sickle-cell anemia) is the key.

                      FTU asked for a beneficial mutation–I gave him one. As he has done repeatedly, he moved the goalpost and started talking about lost information, which appears to be some variant of Dembski’s “specified complexity” argument, along with the weird claim that all mutations have to be beneficial, which is also ridiculous, as if some authorizing body (the Church perhaps?) has established a purity test for DNA, and only that genetic material present in Adam and Eve can be considered “the vaulted ideal.” Sorry, doesn’t work that way, and no amount of special pleading and misdirection will make it so. Follow FTU’s hand-waving if you want. I’m done humoring him.

                      **Interesting side-bar: I have read, can’t remember where, that some historians posit that being a sickle-cell carrier was one of the reasons why African slaves were used in the South as they were able to survive the conditions better than white slaves.

                    6. Cape Cod Skeptic – sickle cell does make you immune to malaria, but it has it down sides. You have to have periodic blood transfusions, you are constantly tired, poor lung quality, difficult pregnancies, etc. It is considered a blood disease.

                  4. CCS, Do the math, It’s mathematical impossible for the Human DNA to come together by Chance. Evolutionism is mathematical impossible. You can Lie to yourself, you Can’t lie to me, but Don’t lie to the uninformed.

                    1. You should let us know when you give your next back to back lectures.

                      I’m sure they are riveting.

                      Can you post a video of these lectures in the meantime?

                    2. ss, maybe you can fly in and we can have a Live debate on only Pure Science, aka (Empirical), you can pick the discipline. Live debates always weeds out the Googlers.

      2. CCS. Google Scientific Racism. Charles Darwin was a White elitist. Evolutionism promotes Racism.

        1. FTU, repeating this creationist argument all over the thread does not make it true.
          Try taking a course in logic.

          1. CCS- Don’t make me laugh. lol That is so last century . The hemoglobin is broken (a loss of genetic information) the malaria virus can’t enter. Your indoctrination is flaring it’s ugly head. When did you do your research, in the 90’s. That hasn’t been used as an argument for a Decade. One again you’ve been Trump and Schooled. lol ! You need to give Obama back the money he gave you for your Cheap Education, aka (indoctrination).

    2. Karen S — I hold that the cosmos, some form of the multiverse, has alway existed. This eliminates the question of what created the Creator.

      1. David, Now you are getting into the metaphysical and that’s out side of science. a belief system (aka religion}

  12. Seriously? Eyesight just spontaneously evolved? A single-celled amoeba grew and popped eyes up in its head? How did the living organism know there was anything to see outside of itself? How did the organism know there was anything to hear and, thusly, evolve ears? How did the organism know to perpetuate itself? Who evolved the mechanics and process of the sexual orgasm?

    This evolution guy is a thinker for sure.

    Sounds like deliberate engineering to me.

    1. Haha. I hope you’re trolling. Funny stuff if you are; “sad, very sad,” if not.

      This is to George (under the bridge?).

      1. Thanks, fellas.

        Mr.’s Congeniality.

        Life was intelligently designed to evolve.

    2. George, it appears that you would benefit from some study of biology.

    1. “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny!”

      Chuckle snort….thanks JPismo Clam. The alien and marine origin sections are particularly
      funny, but the whole video is a hoot.

  13. As long as they don’t try to impose their beliefs on others or use their beliefs as an excuse to discriminate and infringe on the rights of others, they can belief in creationism or the tooth fairy or whatever they want.

    1. LS,
      Is a tax break for churches infringing on rights of others? Does religious accommodation infringe on a baker’s rights? Does paying for social programs — socialized charity with which I disagree — infringe on my rights? Does the legal right for certain priests to refuse to answer questions about a crime to which the criminal has confessed to him. Any other person would be required to reveal the defendant’s statements against self-interest. Does this infringe on my rights? Does paying for a prayer breakfast with my taxes infringe on my rights?
      Absolutely, LS, if they played with their toys in private, I wouldn’t mind. But it is paying for the toys that bothers me. Special occasions for playing with certain toys is legislated. Priests get away with homosexual child rape for decades. Playing with toys, okay. Playing with boys, not so much.

      1. RP,
        All good points. If a non-profit organization does charity work, they deserve a tax break in my opinion. And that includes religious institutions. But if they’re getting a tax break just because they’re a religious organization, yeah, I have a problem with that. Lawyers and medical professionals are exempted from having to answer questions, their conversation is privileged, so again, I have no issue with extending that to include priests, rabbis, etc. The National Prayer Breakfast, yeah, that needs to be abolished in my opinion. Or at least not paid for on the taxpayer dime and where the President is basically required to attend. As far as I’m concerned, it’s unconstitutional as it’s a de facto endorsement of religion by the government.

        Now, the whole ‘baker being forced to make a cake for a gay wedding’ issue, that’s tricky. It’s not a restaurant or hotel. Let’s broaden the question- Does a baker have the right to not make a cake for someone, say, because they’re African-American? Or Asian? Or Jewish? Issue of conscious? That’s just an excuse. A racist’s hatred could be written off as an issue of conscious because his racism is a deeply held belief.

        1. The National Prayer Breakfast, where the President is basically required to attend, yeah, that needs to be abolished in my opinion. Or at least not paid for on the taxpayer dime.

          (Yeah, that’s clearer.)

    2. LS- Google Scientific Racism. Charles Darwin was a White elitist. Evolutionism promotes Racism.

Comments are closed.