More Americans accept theory of creationism than evolution

[Mad_Michael]

The theory of evolution is ultimately falsifiable - every proposition can (ultimately and theoretically) be tested, verified or falsified. Thus, it is a valid scientific theory until such time as it is sufficiently falsified.

It is only a valid theory if it is proven to be an 'established theory' backed by laws as with Ohms Law, Newton's Laws and the laws of thermodynamics. Currently evolution has no credibility.

"If the theory gains general acceptance in competition with others, then it may become an established theory. Its credibility is improved if it leads to the development of other theories and ultimately to a general advance in scientific knowledge. Established theories are sometimes called "laws," as in Ohms law, Newton's laws and the laws of thermodynamics."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_stat.htm

Well, at least your post is colourful! You appear to have a rather bizarre view of how science operates.

And science isn't a democracy - scientists don't vote on the decision of 'establishing' scientific theories. Theories are either falsified or they are not.

Btw, "Newton's Laws" are based upon Newton's theory of gravity (which has not yet been falsified, though Einstein did find a very slight flaw in the theory).

[jbg]

I do agree that setting up creationism and evolution as equal theories is a false dichotomy. Personally, I believe that one is science, the other religion. I think that the religious fundamentalists are fooling themselves if they think that mixing government and religion is ever a good idea.

"There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore."

-- Pat Robertson, address to his American Center for Law and Justice, November, 1993. Let's see, now: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." How could the prohibition against Congress making laws respecting an establishment of religion be anything but the separation of church and state?

Literally speaking, Pat Robertson is correct. The portion of the First Amendment you quoted creates, practically speaking, just such a separation. The term "separation of Church and State" is a not-bad shorthand. What does make it inaccurate is that nothing forbids the use of the word "G-d" in the "Pledge of Allegiance" to the US flag, or on the money.

[Mad_Michael]

Literally speaking, Pat Robertson is correct. The portion of the First Amendment you quoted creates, practically speaking, just such a separation. The term "separation of Church and State" is a not-bad shorthand. What does make it inaccurate is that nothing forbids the use of the word "G-d" in the "Pledge of Allegiance" to the US flag, or on the money.

Excellent post.

[Leafless]

And science isn't a democracy - scientists don't vote on the decision of 'establishing' scientific theories. Theories are either falsified or they are not.

"However, in science, a "theory" is a belief that has been verified by actual experimentation and/or observation."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_stat.htm

[jbg]

Literally speaking, Pat Robertson is correct. The portion of the First Amendment you quoted creates, practically speaking, just such a separation. The term "separation of Church and State" is a not-bad shorthand. What does make it inaccurate is that nothing forbids the use of the word "G-d" in the "Pledge of Allegiance" to the US flag, or on the money.

Excellent post.

Thank you. I know a bit more about the US than I know about Canada, which isn't saying much because I know nothing about Canada.

[Electric Monk]

Literally speaking, Pat Robertson is correct. The portion of the First Amendment you quoted creates, practically speaking, just such a separation. The term "separation of Church and State" is a not-bad shorthand. What does make it inaccurate is that nothing forbids the use of the word "G-d" in the "Pledge of Allegiance" to the US flag, or on the money.

I wonder why they don't allow the ten commandments, or other religious symbols in public buildings, or prayer in schools, but yet money and the pledge of allegiance are allowed to endorse the Christian religion?

[Electric Monk]

""The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." 5

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

This is not true, evolution requires imperfectly replicating living organisms.

Evolution 101, Mechanisms: the processes of evolution

Kinda makes you wonder how reliable that site is, if they get such a basic fact wrong.

[Leafless]

""The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." 5

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

This is not true, evolution requires imperfectly replicating living organisms.

Evolution 101, Mechanisms: the processes of evolution

Kinda makes you wonder how reliable that site is, if they get such a basic fact wrong.

The fact remains evolution is a theory but yet cannot be substantially falsified by creationist.

Personally I see no merit in the promoting or teaching of evolution as it dilutes the purpose of life and human beings in general, to the level of dogs and cats, pertaining to the level of self worth and lack of respect for life itself and only contributes to the degeneration of civilized behavior and loss of values and morals.

Evolution has no place in society and should belong only in the bedrooms of smart ass scientist who don't even have the capability to create any meaningful form of any kind of life.

[Mad_Michael]

And science isn't a democracy - scientists don't vote on the decision of 'establishing' scientific theories. Theories are either falsified or they are not.

"However, in science, a "theory" is a belief that has been verified by actual experimentation and/or observation."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_stat.htm

You appear to be unaware of the precepts of epistemology that govern the philosophy of science.

Verification and observation are used to create theories. However, for a theory to have scientific standing it MUST be theoretically falsifiable. Human science cannot 'prove' any theory at all - that is epistemologically impossible.

And this is the line that divides science from religious doctrine. Religious doctrine may perhaps be verified and observed, but it can never be falsified, which is why religious doctrines can never be considered 'scientific' theories.

[Mad_Michael]

The fact remains evolution is a theory but yet cannot be substantially falsified by creationist.

This is a valid statement.

Personally I see no merit in the promoting or teaching of evolution as it dilutes the purpose of life and human beings in general, to the level of dogs and cats, pertaining to the level of self worth and lack of respect for life itself and only contributes to the degeneration of civilized behavior and loss of values and morals.

The alleged purpose of life and human beings in general is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion. One doesn't need to be 'God's special creation' in order to have self-worth and respect for life.

Evolution has no place in society and should belong only in the bedrooms of smart ass scientist who don't even have the capability to create any meaningful form of any kind of life.

Right. Same with the theory of gravity I'm sure.

[Mad_Michael]

Literally speaking, Pat Robertson is correct. The portion of the First Amendment you quoted creates, practically speaking, just such a separation. The term "separation of Church and State" is a not-bad shorthand. What does make it inaccurate is that nothing forbids the use of the word "G-d" in the "Pledge of Allegiance" to the US flag, or on the money.

I wonder why they don't allow the ten commandments, or other religious symbols in public buildings, or prayer in schools, but yet money and the pledge of allegiance are allowed to endorse the Christian religion?

Because putting the ten commandments or other religious symbols in pubic buildings or prayer in schools is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment regarding the establishment of religion since public buildings and schools are government institutions. Most importantly though, prayer or the ten commandments are elements of a specific religion. Thus, any application of them by the government is a violation of the 1st Amendment prohibition against establishment.

The term of 'God' appearing in the Pledge or on US currency is entirely non-denominational in context - no establishment is established - and thus, the 1st Amendment prohibition is not violated.

[jbg]

Literally speaking, Pat Robertson is correct. The portion of the First Amendment you quoted creates, practically speaking, just such a separation. The term "separation of Church and State" is a not-bad shorthand. What does make it inaccurate is that nothing forbids the use of the word "G-d" in the "Pledge of Allegiance" to the US flag, or on the money.

I wonder why they don't allow the ten commandments, or other religious symbols in public buildings, or prayer in schools, but yet money and the pledge of allegiance are allowed to endorse the Christian religion?

See Mad Michael's explanation one post above (link). I cannot improve on it.

I personally would argue that allowing the Ten Commandments in schools or courts would be just fine, since all organized societies subscribe to at least most of those commandments. Prayer is a different subject. I am Jewish and would have real problems with my sons either being compelled to utter someone else's prayer or sit it out on the sidelines and be subject to ridicule for not doing so.

[runningdog]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...earch&plindex=0

[buffycat]

I personally would argue that allowing the Ten Commandments in schools or courts would be just fine, since all organized societies subscribe to at least most of those commandments. Prayer is a different subject. I am Jewish and would have real problems with my sons either being compelled to utter someone else's prayer or sit it out on the sidelines and be subject to ridicule for not doing so.

I disagree - how can one allow the Ten Commandments when the first is stated that there is only one true G-d? The arguments will start as to whose God is THE God!!

Nonsense.

I think the seven deadly sins should be taught though - Lust, Anger, Pride, Envy, Greed, Gluttony and Sloth. No need to bring some darn G-d into it.

[BC_chick]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...earch&plindex=0

Wow.

A little bit I knew, a little bit I learned, but never before have I seen such a compilation put together in less than 30 minutes.

That was absolutely fantastic runningdog! Thanks.

[buffycat]

Great little video runningdog! Thank you for posting the link.

I hope others here will view this with open minds.

[Leafless]

The alleged purpose of life and human beings in general is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion.

I base my logic pertaining to man's advancement in the civilized world enforced with the beliefs of Christianity.

Do you actually believe that the progress of Western man would advance without creationism and Christianity?

One doesn't need to be 'God's special creation' in order to have self-worth and respect for life.

Maybe you don't and maybe I don't, but it is obvious many people do as been proven by the moralistic breakdown of an increasingly orderless, valueless, materialistic bent Western society with third world leeches snapping at our feet, trying to position themselves to take control of broken Western society.

[jazzer]

The alleged purpose of life and human beings in general is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion.

I base my logic pertaining to man's advancement in the civilized world enforced with the beliefs of Christianity.

Do you actually believe that the progress of Western man would advance without creationism and Christianity?

One doesn't need to be 'God's special creation' in order to have self-worth and respect for life.

Maybe you don't and maybe I don't, but it is obvious many people do as been proven by the moralistic breakdown of an increasingly orderless, valueless, materialistic bent Western society with third world leeches snapping at our feet, trying to position themselves to take control of broken Western society.

It seems to me that, according to the title of this thread, Americans are more religious these days. And yet you are saying there is a breakdown of morals?

[Electric Monk]

The term of 'God' appearing in the Pledge or on US currency is entirely non-denominational in context - no establishment is established - and thus, the 1st Amendment prohibition is not violated.

Isn't it establishing religion, generally, and excluding those who don't believe?

[Electric Monk]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...earch&plindex=0

Great find!! I've seen one other comparable film

The Naked Truth: Awaken the Sheeple

But yours is much newer and more concise. Thanks.

[runningdog]

ya, that video is food for thought, for sure. I was blown away by it.

[Leafless]

It seems to me that, according to the title of this thread, Americans are more religious these days. And yet you are saying there is a breakdown of morals?

Americans are more religious than Canadians.

But this has nothing to do with the almost total lack of government regulations and laws that support values and morals.

"The only thing that the conservative can hope for is a moral reawakening of the United States.

What supports this fact is the so-called "conservative" upsurge recently in this country has focused nearly entirely on economic issues. They are going to "dismantle the welfare state."

Bravo, but what about dismantling abortion? Gay rights? Birth control pills and devices? Sex education? Dirty movies and TV? Women's liberation? Secular humanism in the schools? These are the true plagues of American society, not high taxes or welfare, and these diseases are the effect of the general breakdown of the morals of the people. And the problem is that these infections cannot be eradicated legally and logically except by some 'principle, a principle which restricts human freedom only to those objects which are good'.

For as long as the cult of liberty is in place, these and the many other noxious influences in our daily lives must continue under the banner of protecting human liberty.

That principle which is so badly needed is the 'law of God'. But since Congress is obliged never to establish a religion, it cannot even apply the Ten Commandments to our lives, it cannot even mention Our Lord Jesus Christ the King, and least of all the Roman Catholic Church. No, our country is condemned to worshipping the masonic Liberty Goddess, and thereby to fall headlong into moral corruption and finally destruction. America - or any other country which worships the Liberty Goddess - can only avoid this destruction if it abandons the Cult of Liberty."

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/mason11.htm

[Mad_Michael]

The alleged purpose of life and human beings in general is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion.

I base my logic pertaining to man's advancement in the civilized world enforced with the beliefs of Christianity.

Do you actually believe that the progress of Western man would advance without creationism and Christianity?

One doesn't need to be 'God's special creation' in order to have self-worth and respect for life.

Maybe you don't and maybe I don't, but it is obvious many people do as been proven by the moralistic breakdown of an increasingly orderless, valueless, materialistic bent Western society with third world leeches snapping at our feet, trying to position themselves to take control of broken Western society.

It seems to me that, according to the title of this thread, Americans are more religious these days. And yet you are saying there is a breakdown of morals?

You raise an interesting point.

The USA, arguably speaking, shows the most 'orderless, valueless, materialistic bent' of any Western society - and yet the USA is the one Western country with the most religious belief. That is to say, the one country with the worst morality apparently is the one country with the most morality.

Curious phenomena that.

[jbg]

You raise an interesting point.

The USA, arguably speaking, shows the most 'orderless, valueless, materialistic bent' of any Western society - and yet the USA is the one Western country with the most religious belief. That is to say, the one country with the worst morality apparently is the one country with the most morality.

Curious phenomena that.

That's not really an accurate description. We are religious, but that is self-imposed.

[Leafless]

You raise an interesting point.

The USA, arguably speaking, shows the most 'orderless, valueless, materialistic bent' of any Western society - and yet the USA is the one Western country with the most religious belief. That is to say, the one country with the worst morality apparently is the one country with the most morality.

Curious phenomena that.

Firstly one must decide what kind if country one wants and the general population has no say pertaining to this important question.

Obviously, relating to both the U.S. and Canada are not countries driven by a national religion promoting values and morals and decency, but countries driven by GREED and CORRUPTNESS, worsening at a steady rate.

This is no phenomena, it is just that 'the monkeys are running the zoo'.