Evolution vs. Creationism[W:2571, 3239]

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

For many, it refers to their background or ethnic grouping, not their actual belief. It's a tribal tick in a box.

So all Atheist come from the same background ethnic group?eace

 

[Chagos]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Yes to say that Science is for anyone that wants it ? What? Ya gotta pass an Atheist revue before you become a scientist?eace

So why quote that particular post of mine that merely dealt with how a maths equation that can't distinguish between known and unknown is daft?

 

[Manc Skipper]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

So all Atheist come from the same background ethnic group?eace

What would lead you to such a fatuous conclusion?

 

[Manc Skipper]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Check your history there sport ,check the data of the Monkey trail , Organised Religion fought Darwinism tooth and nail.
Personally I say evolution is fact, It is Atheist that used this trick calling evolution a "theory" so the rest of the "theories" could fit ineace

Could you clarify what the above word salad means?

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Could you clarify what the above word salad means?

Gibberish would be nearer the mark.

 

[roguenuke]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Well we agree on one thing science is science it is not however an Atheist only club. Many Faith believers and lots of Christians love science they want only progress for science and science to move forward .
However talking about science to prove there is no God in my belief is a waste of time an individual human is going to believe what they choose , you can not destroy faith with words.
Where are the advancements in Science today , not Atheism , SCIENCE.
Einstein, Edison, Bell Ford , they did not sit and talk about science these were men of action they moved the progress of science moved. in 2006 the #1 technical marvel was the new IPHONE updated from the old cell phone. Now granted I got nothing against cell phones , but what of nano technology, what of public housing with voice activation, what of electromagnetism, what of alternative fuel to oil
.
It has been said on this forum that if a person has faith in God his I.Q. automatically drops . If just talking about a subject gives you a high I.Q. my girlfriends must have an I.Q. OF 200.
Some say Faith Believers use God as a crutch , no we simply have faith in God we do not ask anyone to believe has we do nor do we try to change other peoples belief or non belief we respect them as long as they respect us if not we respond. Although Atheist , according to some you can't be a scientist without being an Atheist. I don't mind atheist and their non-belief. I do mind Atheist saying science is an atheist only club , or trying to corner the market of science. For science is science is it not, it is not just for Atheist , nor is it just for people of faith it is merely science .eace

No one has said it is an atheists only club or even no theists. We are simply pointing out that scientists in general tend to reject religion, particularly religions that have claims contrary to science. The same is true for those who have higher IQs. Knowledge and intelligence leads many people to reject ridiculous, supernatural claims. Or at the least to not simply accept what others tell them God did, said, wants, expects, etc. This is a generalization. There certainly are some exceptions, but there is a definite correlation between intelligence and/or being in a scientific profession and rejection of religion (but not necessarily rejection of a higher power).

 

[roguenuke]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Why would you care , if a brand new scientific marvel was introduced but the man that presented it a scientist believed in God would you use it?eace

I wouldn't and don't. Never said I did. Not sure why some think that pointing out facts about statistics and religion is viewed as the person doing so must be atheist, or reject the notion of a higher power or even hate religious people of any type or a specific type. Most don't including myself.

 

[tosca1]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

What you say is true ,except for the label part.There are some that are simply Faith Believers to have faith in God

I've said that, too.

There are those who have faith in God that do not join organized religion like Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, etc.., That's what I understand by the "label" part.

Roguenuke was saying that those who don't join religions must be agnostics.

 

[tosca1]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

No one has said it is an atheists only club or even no theists. We are simply pointing out that scientists in general tend to reject religion, particularly religions that have claims contrary to science. The same is true for those who have higher IQs. Knowledge and intelligence leads many people to reject ridiculous, supernatural claims. Or at the least to not simply accept what others tell them God did, said, wants, expects, etc. This is a generalization. There certainly are some exceptions, but there is a definite correlation between intelligence and/or being in a scientific profession and rejection of religion (but not necessarily rejection of a higher power).

Anyway....religion, is also generalized. Anything that identify itself as a religion - cults and sects - is included in that.



Whether intelligence causes people to reject religious belief is more complex. It is certainly plausible that highly intelligent people would have a problem accepting some of the more improbable beliefs required by their church Moreover, modern science offers explanations for phenomena that were previously explained in terms of religion and intelligent people may prefer the scientific account..

In short, discussing correlations between IQ and religiosity without a grasp of the relevant underlying factors is something of a parlor game. It recalls the long and tiresome debate about the correlation between IQ scores and skin color that got a lot of people very excited but proved a scientific dead end.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201005/the-real-reason-atheists-have-higher-iqs





A few years ago, some bored researchers decided to plot the importance of religion in people's lives vs. IQ from several countries throughout the world.1 The results are quite impressive (See figure to right), with a correlation coefficient of nearly 0.9 (1.0 is perfect). So, this proves that dumb people are attracted to religions, right?


The animated figure to the right shows the correlation of religion vs. IQ along side the correlation of GDP per capita vs. IQ.3 Since the slopes of the two curves are virtually identical, one would be hard pressed to claim that one factor or another was actually responsible for the prevalence of religion around the world. By the way, there is an outlier country in all this - the United States. People from the U.S. rate religion as being very important, although they have one of the highest IQ's. However, they also have the highest GDP per capita, which seems to be a more significant factor influencing IQ than religious involvement. In general, one could speculate that those who have a full belly would be less likely to consider their need for God. Why does the United States buck that trend, even though it was founded with a secular form of government?



Religion vs. IQ - Are Religious People Stupid?

 

[roguenuke]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Anyway....religion, is also generalized. Anything that identify itself as a religion - cults and sects - is included in that.



Whether intelligence causes people to reject religious belief is more complex. It is certainly plausible that highly intelligent people would have a problem accepting some of the more improbable beliefs required by their church Moreover, modern science offers explanations for phenomena that were previously explained in terms of religion and intelligent people may prefer the scientific account..

In short, discussing correlations between IQ and religiosity without a grasp of the relevant underlying factors is something of a parlor game. It recalls the long and tiresome debate about the correlation between IQ scores and skin color that got a lot of people very excited but proved a scientific dead end.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201005/the-real-reason-atheists-have-higher-iqs





A few years ago, some bored researchers decided to plot the importance of religion in people's lives vs. IQ from several countries throughout the world.1 The results are quite impressive (See figure to right), with a correlation coefficient of nearly 0.9 (1.0 is perfect). So, this proves that dumb people are attracted to religions, right?


The animated figure to the right shows the correlation of religion vs. IQ along side the correlation of GDP per capita vs. IQ.3 Since the slopes of the two curves are virtually identical, one would be hard pressed to claim that one factor or another was actually responsible for the prevalence of religion around the world. By the way, there is an outlier country in all this - the United States. People from the U.S. rate religion as being very important, although they have one of the highest IQ's. However, they also have the highest GDP per capita, which seems to be a more significant factor influencing IQ than religious involvement. In general, one could speculate that those who have a full belly would be less likely to consider their need for God. Why does the United States buck that trend, even though it was founded with a secular form of government?



Religion vs. IQ - Are Religious People Stupid?

Because Americans tend to cling to things. We're very stubborn. Sometimes in a way that keeps people ignorant.

 

[akrunner88]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

I'm an atheist and as a 27 year old, it's more common than not that the people I meet in my day to day life in the places I've lived like Illinois, California, Colorado etc will be atheists as well or "spiritual/non-religious" while still believing a higher power is there.

But many of the smartest friends I have are Christians and Muslims. I don't equate religious belief with intelligence as there are a myriad of factors that go into why someone would be religious. Even as someone raised atheist my whole life, I went through a three year period of religious belief when my grandmother died because the death of someone that close to me was traumatizing and I wanted to believe so badly that she was still here somehow.

I do generally believe that fundamentalists (note - not your average ordinary every day believer, but the people who take a strict interpretation of their holy scripts) lack the desire to seek out more intellectual points of views and therefore are inhibited by their unwillingness to examine the world as it is. But I've met very few fundamentalists in my life even though I know many are in the US. Most of my religious friends are able to combine their faith with science and chalk up certain parts of their Bible or Koran as "allegory" or "metaphor" whilst still believing in evolution, the Big Bang, etc. I think there is a level of intellectual laziness here and ultimately it was these things that caused me to go back to being an atheist when examining it all, but I accept it.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

WOW, I thought science was for everyone not just for faith believers or Atheist but everyone for science comes from nature does it not?eace

It can be. However, not everyone understands or can follow the scientific method, or evaluate evidence in a proper and logical manner.

 

[DDD]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

I don't mind theories but some times it is better to go with natural law and odds kinda like schroders cat theory as long as the box is closed the cat is alive maybe dead 50/50 chance but open the box well you can say it;s alive put if it's not moving you have no proof .eace

Okay,

Anyway, that is the evidence that supports the Big Bang theory. While there is no evidence to support the religious "god" concept.

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

So why quote that particular post of mine that merely dealt with how a maths equation that can't distinguish between known and unknown is daft?

Unless I'm mistaken there is a difference between known and unknown. Just because any person says something is known does not make it so.
On more than one occasion I have made a statement on this forum and I was ask for proof , or a link to back up what I say.Not circumstantial evidence , not theory PROOF.eace

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

What would lead you to such a fatuous conclusion?[/QUOTE.

Read post #2006 have ya that's your post,seems like ethnic background was mentioned in it.eace

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Could you clarify what the above word salad means?

Well at one time in America a certain Teacher brought up Darwinism in School ORGANIZED RELIGION people didn't like it at the time , but the teacher wouldn't back down that led to the first public trial the Scopes trial unless I'm mistaken, The prosecutor was William Jennings Brant HE LOST BY THE WAY.eace

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Gibberish would be nearer the mark.[QUOTE.

You mean to say that nobody's heard of the so called "Monkey trial"eace

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

No one has said it is an atheists only club or even no theists. We are simply pointing out that scientists in general tend to reject religion, particularly religions that have claims contrary to science. The same is true for those who have higher IQs. Knowledge and intelligence leads many people to reject ridiculous, supernatural claims. Or at the least to not simply accept what others tell them God did, said, wants, expects, etc. This is a generalization. There certainly are some exceptions, but there is a definite correlation between intelligence and/or being in a scientific profession and rejection of religion (but not necessarily rejection of a higher power).

I too reject organized religion" Not simply accept what others tell them" your words right ? I have an example organized religion does not believe in evolution I say evolution is fact.. Organized religion is about power and money Organized religion says walk like I walk talk like I talk believe what I tell you to no questions.
Lets flip the script on this "Not simply to accept what others tell you." your words ..Atheist say the universe started with a Big Bang , atheist say this is theory this is true , atheist say there is no God yet all of these have no hard core evidence to prove facts. So first is not Atheist asking people to accept this after all they told them. I'd like to know how the atheist know there is no God a mere 5 centuries ago there was no airplanes there was no computers, there were no microwave ovens Go further back in history there was no America Some people said America could not exist , some people said man will never fly some people said the horseless carriage was a passing fad. yet here we are.
Improbable maybe that word can be used , impossible don't think so , I think that word impossible have a bad track record.eace

 

[Chagos]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Unless I'm mistaken there is a difference between known and unknown. Just because any person says something is known does not make it so.
On more than one occasion I have made a statement on this forum and I was ask for proof , or a link to back up what I say.Not circumstantial evidence , not theory PROOF.eace

OK.

Seeing how we're obviously in two completely different and unrelated conversations, I'll end mine here.

 

[calamity]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

I too reject organized religion" Not simply accept what others tell them" your words right ? I have an example organized religion does not believe in evolution I say evolution is fact.. Organized religion is about power and money Organized religion says walk like I walk talk like I talk believe what I tell you to no questions.
Lets flip the script on this "Not simply to accept what others tell you." your words ..Atheist say the universe started with a Big Bang , atheist say this is theory this is true , atheist say there is no God yet all of these have no hard core evidence to prove facts. So first is not Atheist asking people to accept this after all they told them. I'd like to know how the atheist know there is no God a mere 5 centuries ago there was no airplanes there was no computers, there were no microwave ovens Go further back in history there was no America Some people said America could not exist , some people said man will never fly some people said the horseless carriage was a passing fad. yet here we are.
Improbable maybe that word can be used , impossible don't think so , I think that word impossible have a bad track record.eace

The most intellectually honest position is to say there is evidence for the Big Bang Theory, but there is also significant reason to question it's validity.
Backlash to Big Bang Discovery Gathers Steam - Scientific American

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

Likewise, the most honest approach to the god question is to simply state whether or not one believes in them or not. It is a safer bet intellectually than saying there is no god, which of course cannot be verified.

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

I wouldn't and don't. Never said I did. Not sure why some think that pointing out facts about statistics and religion is viewed as the person doing so must be atheist, or reject the notion of a higher power or even hate religious people of any type or a specific type. Most don't including myself.

I merely respond to post after all you look at my Faith belief has a supernatural ridiculous.

So about this magic trick pulled off by a vacuum causing, a Big Bang placing the planets in exact orbit with the sun. and the earth orbiting at the precise speed too much we'd fly off too little it would be hard to move. then there's water H2O EXACTLY, even that's a lot to consider from a vacuum of nothing . Then the Big Bang which has no iron clad proof there for is in question. I could go on .eace

 

[Manc Skipper]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Well at one time in America a certain Teacher brought up Darwinism in School ORGANIZED RELIGION people didn't like it at the time , but the teacher wouldn't back down that led to the first public trial the Scopes trial unless I'm mistaken, The prosecutor was William Jennings Brant HE LOST BY THE WAY.eace

Perhaps if you had been less circuitous in your disquisition, the meaning would have been more obvious. In what way is a crazy trial about the teaching of the fact and theory of evolution related to your "Darwinism" word? (Scopes was found not guilty on appeal, but the Butler act he was tried under was fatally wounded and driven extinct.)

 

[Manc Skipper]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

I merely respond to post after all you look at my Faith belief has a supernatural ridiculous.

So about this magic trick pulled off by a vacuum causing, a Big Bang placing the planets in exact orbit with the sun. and the earth orbiting at the precise speed too much we'd fly off too little it would be hard to move. then there's water H2O EXACTLY, even that's a lot to consider from a vacuum of nothing . Then the Big Bang which has no iron clad proof there for is in question. I could go on .eace

There is no limit to meaningless garbology, true.

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

I've said that, too.

There are those who have faith in God that do not join organized religion like Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, etc.., That's what I understand by the "label" part.

Roguenuke was saying that those who don't join religions must be agnostics.

That was the point I was trying to make, Some , well a majority of people think if you have faith in God you must belong to organized religion , or an agnostic.
Personally I never was one for labels I merely have faith in God or intelligent design if you wish , If I must where a label it would be Faith believer.
As I have said I seek knowledge through religion, science, history biology and anything else as for physics too much talk not enough action for me , too many this might have happened that might have happened or lets change the rules. in physics for my taste anyway . In my humble opinion physics should be more of this will work and less of this might work.eace

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

I'm an atheist and as a 27 year old, it's more common than not that the people I meet in my day to day life in the places I've lived like Illinois, California, Colorado etc will be atheists as well or "spiritual/non-religious" while still believing a higher power is there.

But many of the smartest friends I have are Christians and Muslims. I don't equate religious belief with intelligence as there are a myriad of factors that go into why someone would be religious. Even as someone raised atheist my whole life, I went through a three year period of religious belief when my grandmother died because the death of someone that close to me was traumatizing and I wanted to believe so badly that she was still here somehow.

I do generally believe that fundamentalists (note - not your average ordinary every day believer, but the people who take a strict interpretation of their holy scripts) lack the desire to seek out more intellectual points of views and therefore are inhibited by their unwillingness to examine the world as it is. But I've met very few fundamentalists in my life even though I know many are in the US. Most of my religious friends are able to combine their faith with science and chalk up certain parts of their Bible or Koran as "allegory" or "metaphor" whilst still believing in evolution, the Big Bang, etc. I think there is a level of intellectual laziness here and ultimately it was these things that caused me to go back to being an atheist when examining it all, but I accept it.

I'm a Faith believer, I say this about the Bible as well as the Koran, all though there are some good rules to follow "thou shalt not kill or steal" comes to mind. These books were written by men man makes mistakes from time to time. However if some Men makes mistakes writing certain religious books, would not the books of the Big Bang come into question after all they too were written by meneace.