wyly Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 It is the general Canadian population that is a little bit divided about creationism. If science is needed here it is to understand social ideology, collective hysteria, the role of religion in politics, etc., in short, nothing directly related to biology. Canadians aren't divided on creationism, creatioists would like to think they are...let the Harper cons make it an election issue and see how badly the fanatical right will get trounced...Canadians will overwhemingly reject religion in politics or science...I recall what happen to Stockwell Day run for government when it was confirmed he believed the earth was 6,000yrs old... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Canadians aren't divided on creationism, creatioists would like to think they are... Sadly, I don't think this is the case. If the choice is between young-earth creationism or evolution, most people would pick evolution. However, if you make the question more open, I've seen polls that suggest that the number of people who believe in 'pure' evolution actually drops to around 1/3, with the rest of the people either believing in young-earth creationism or some sort of god-involved process. Of course, this doesn't mean that creationism or ID is correct, it means we have to do a better job at providing basic science and logic in school. http://www.montrealgazette.com/Life/Canadi...5662/story.html http://www.catholicregister.org/content/view/933/857/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Sadly, I don't think this is the case.If the choice is between young-earth creationism or evolution, most people would pick evolution. However, if you make the question more open, I've seen polls that suggest that the number of people who believe in 'pure' evolution actually drops to around 1/3, with the rest of the people either believing in young-earth creationism or some sort of god-involved process. Of course, this doesn't mean that creationism or ID is correct, it means we have to do a better job at providing basic science and logic in school. http://www.montrealgazette.com/Life/Canadi...5662/story.html http://www.catholicregister.org/content/view/933/857/ Very good point. Critical thinking and analytical thinking seems to be missing when creationism or ID and even evolution are concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Sadly, I don't think this is the case.If the choice is between young-earth creationism or evolution, most people would pick evolution. However, if you make the question more open, I've seen polls that suggest that the number of people who believe in 'pure' evolution actually drops to around 1/3, with the rest of the people either believing in young-earth creationism or some sort of god-involved process. Of course, this doesn't mean that creationism or ID is correct, it means we have to do a better job at providing basic science and logic in school. http://www.montrealgazette.com/Life/Canadi...5662/story.html http://www.catholicregister.org/content/view/933/857/ Sure if the question is so vague like "Did Gid start it all" ....start asking Qs like, does god have a hand in all things including the ascent of man, the evolution of horses and the tectonic plates.....the answer becomes less vague Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Very good point. Critical thinking and analytical thinking seems to be missing when creationism or ID and even evolution are concerned. It is not a good point at all because those who want to understand the Bible literally are mostly older persons who will not go back to school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Sure if the question is so vague like "Did Gid start it all" ....start asking Qs like, does god have a hand in all things including the ascent of man, the evolution of horses and the tectonic plates.....the answer becomes less vague I would add, I am quite ready to consider that God started it all but got distracted by something shiney and we have been on our own since the Big Bang +0.000000001 seconds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Hypothesis (to explain the presence of some creationists in the Canadian population): because science can do scary things, some religious people react hysterically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 I would add, I am quite ready to consider that God started it all but got distracted by something shiney and we have been on our own since the Big Bang +0.000000001 seconds God/Funny version Yet another even more accurate story states that the Big Bang started with an arm wrestling match between God and his roommate Chugs. Chugs was about to beat God until God farted and waved the fart in Chugs' direction. God then took this advantage to pin a disgusted Chugs and beat him. God then felt another fart coming and asked to borrow Chugs' lighter. God then tried to set his fart on fire. The result was a mass explosion that created the universe. ---Family Guy's version of the creation of the Universe. http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/God/Funny_version Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 God/Funny versionYet another even more accurate story states that the Big Bang started with an arm wrestling match between God and his roommate Chugs. Chugs was about to beat God until God farted and waved the fart in Chugs' direction. God then took this advantage to pin a disgusted Chugs and beat him. God then felt another fart coming and asked to borrow Chugs' lighter. God then tried to set his fart on fire. The result was a mass explosion that created the universe. ---Family Guy's version of the creation of the Universe. Canadians were not questioned about any gnostic version of the creation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 It is not a good point at all because those who want to understand the Bible literally are mostly older persons who will not go back to school. You are a perfect example of why critical thinking is needed in schools. Because for the most part, it is YOUNG people in school. And critical thinking does not get in the way of anyone wanting to learn the literal interpretation of the bible. Not to mention there is this thing called CHURCH were people can go find out about the bible. You failed again benny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 You are a perfect example of why critical thinking is needed in schools. Because for the most part, it is YOUNG people in school. The young are already accepting evolution so we don't have to do a better job in school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 The young are already accepting evolution so we don't have to do a better job in school. However you asked about OLD people. So I don't know what you are asking. And it seems like you don't even know what you are asking. If you are even asking for anything. Step aside boy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 However you asked about OLD people. So I don't know what you are asking. And it seems like you don't even know what you are asking. If you are even asking for anything. Step aside boy. Segnosaur wrote "we have to do a better job at providing basic science and logic in school." You wrongly reply "Very good point. Critical thinking and analytical thinking seems to be missing…" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Segnosaur wrote "we have to do a better job at providing basic science and logic in school." You wrongly reply "Very good point. Critical thinking and analytical thinking seems to be missing…" You do realize in order to get logic, you at least need to be able to think critically and analytically. That is how you get logic, and good logic at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 You do realize in order to get logic, you at least need to be able to think critically and analytically. That is how you get logic, and good logic at that. A tautology like this one won't pass a school exam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 A tautology like this one won't pass a school exam. Without logic, and proper (analytical and critical) thinking you are not going to pass the exam either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Without logic, and proper (analytical and critical) thinking you are not going to pass the exam either. So benny, get back on the topic again. You drift more than me in my Peugeot 206. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 5, 2009 Report Share Posted June 5, 2009 Without logic, and proper (analytical and critical) thinking you are not going to pass the exam either. I don't have to re-pass my exams period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 They don't seem very divided over at Berkley: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 They don't seem very divided over at Berkley:http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ They are divided because they speak of the history of evolution theory: A rupture in the continuum of evolution is the mark of history. http://books.google.com/books?id=cKD8j-hHJ...lt&resnum=1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 They are divided because they speak of the history of evolution theory: A rupture in the continuum of evolution is the mark of history.http://books.google.com/books?id=cKD8j-hHJ...lt&resnum=1 You're divided because seeing through language you are no longer able to use it to communicate effectively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Evolution and Creation are the same thing. When we debate the differences and which concept has more value - we de-evolve and are not very creative - we get locked in a holding pattern that goes around for eternity..There will NEVER be a resolution to this thing. Not one human being has been given the wisdom to unlock the great mystery and the unlocking will never take place - we are trying to force the lock - when all we have to do is turn the knob and stop pounding on the door like bastard children seeking a father or wanting to be one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 You're divided because seeing through language you are no longer able to use it to communicate effectively. Language creates our humanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Language creates our humanity. Got that right - the old Slavonic word for rain is doeshh.....it has a rain sound at the end - it's very discriptive and basic. There is no such thing as seeing though language - the simplest of words must be understood and their origin must be understood - for instance when dealing with lawyers - I had the edge - because they had forgotten what language is and what words really mean - I would go to the origin - the latin or old norse etc..it was very helpful and empowering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Got that right - the old Slavonic word for rain is doeshh.....it has a rain sound at the end - it's very discriptive and basic. There is no such thing as seeing though language - the simplest of words must be understood and their origin must be understood - for instance when dealing with lawyers - I had the edge - because they had forgotten what language is and what words really mean - I would go to the origin - the latin or old norse etc..it was very helpful and empowering. Yes. Language is able to structure our dwelling place outside the animal kingdom because it is not only a series of onomatopoeias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomatopoeia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.