Thursday, November 30, 2006

Acceptance of Evolution Gravity in the United States

This *IS* true

This Might as well be:

Via Colin Purrington
See this also:National Geographic Reports: Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries

10 comments:

MC said...

That scares me to the core.

Anonymous said...

same here , this is why science gets such a small budget compared to other things , if all of the money that went into church went into things like the redcross and reasearch

Brendon said...

If you believe in this logic you are most likely and idiot, because this is a fallacy.

If "A" is true, than so must "B". This is actually something that is taught very early in the secular realm.

Please, explain, with your logic, what those who are in the secular realm believe is true that do not necessarily believe in evolution?

Because evolution is less accepted in the U.S. than other countries means we're less intelligent? Why don't you consider the inverse? Do you enjoy indoor plumbing? If not, you can move to a country that employs alternative methods because they believe in evolution? Is evolution the "gold standard" in the modern age?

I find it interesting that you must criticize that which you do not understand when there is much to criticize of that which you believe you understand. You've obviously been taught to question - which is highly relevant a sign of intelligence, yet, you look past those ideas which warrant the greatest question and take them as your law.

Please, if you must use your fallacious logic, answer me this: if it has been known that in particular cases "prayer" has been attributed to the curing of particular diseases, of which cancer is included, why hasn't science yielded such results in any case? Are my odds not better in a situation where the probability is above 0, where science yields only 0?

Please, by all means, continue to conduct your fallacious logic, though only those who are as juvenile in thought as yourself shall follow.

- God Speed!

steco said...

Brendon-

Actually I wrote .. this MIGHT as well be true. There's a difference, and no fallacies in my logic. There are, (no surprise) plenty present in yours though.

"Please, explain, with your logic, what those who are in the secular realm believe is true that do not necessarily believe in evolution?"

I'm not aware of any "secularists" that don't believe in evolution. (Then again I don't attend any of their meetings.) I am aware of many "non secularists" that believe in evolution. The Catholic Church for instance


"Because evolution is less accepted in the U.S. than other countries means we're less intelligent? Why don't you consider the inverse? Do you enjoy indoor plumbing? If not, you can move to a country that employs alternative methods because they believe in evolution? Is evolution the "gold standard" in the modern age?"



No, I don't equate indoor plumbing with intelligence. But, if you equate a non-belief in evolution with intelligence, perhaps you'd be happier in Turkey.


And finally, The US is the richest nation in the world, with access to the best doctors, the best health care, and a non-belief in evolution second only to Turkey and yet...
There are 36 countries with lower infant mortality rates than the US.

Why aren't you praying harder for the babies?

Anonymous said...

The fallacy in your argument actually comes in your use of logic. Claiming that if A is true, then B is true is saying that A is the antecedent to B. Now replacing A and B with Evolution/Creationism and gravity, you are claiming that if evolution was behind human development, then gravity exists, but if Creationism is the truth, then gravity does not exist. Clearly, gravity does exist no matter what the antecedent, and so any antecedent is ambiguous.

That largest fallacy in your logic is what you have dubbed as the independent and dependent variables. Had you switched A and B, having B be the antecedent, your logic would be fine, because B would not be ambiguous.

Your attempt to synthesize a fact with theory is misguided, and an ambiguous attempt to insult the intelligence of those who reject the evolution theory. It is nothing more.

sqrlking said...

It's funny in a horribly terrifying way.

I read about a study done where they checked the validity of prayer as a method of cure. Prayer ranked the same as doing nothing. If I remember correctly, it was a pretty large study.

of course, maybe faith is quantum, and observation changes the outcome. Has the church come out with that argument yet?

Anonymous said...

Go look in the mirror, we, as humans, are pink, squishy, meat filled sacks, we could be taken down by a large predator way back in the day (as in first ape like human fossil era). And it just so happens that are genes coincidentally came together to create larger brains, advanced systems etc. ALL of this, ALL of evolution is a shit ton of gene based coincidences that natural selection decided to give us, and it also JUST SO HAPPENS that those more advanced ape humans didnt get killed by anything...personally I would rather believe in a guiding hand or God then think that all we humans have created is due to a bunch of coincidences, Im not saying that God created us as we are, that goes against...well the brain God gave us, but again, in my opinion a guiding hand in our genes and mortality, is better then a crap load of coincidences

Anonymous said...

to all you scientists out there:

correct me if I'm wrong but scientific law goes above theory correct? laws have been proven. therefore if a scientific law deems a theory impossible it should be immediately thrown out.

the second law of thermodynamics says that the universe is in a state of increasing entropy (meaning that everything is moving towards a state of total disorder).

in order for evolution to have happened, this law would have to be violated. Since things do not spontaneously come together to form something more organized, it stands to reason that random molecules would NOT assemble to form cells.

Anonymous said...

In relation to 'prayer' curing cancer, how can you prove that prayer cured cancer at all? Humans have been known to recover from life threatening diseases and prosper through simple endurance. The human body isn't 100% discovered through religion OR science, some people can catch a cold and live, some people can catch a cold and die. Evolution is what makes us more immune to ailments, and science out of all things helps us combat cancer so our bodies can cope with it easier. Prayer doesn't do anything but imply false hopes or, at the very positive, gives enough hope for the ill individual to endure through.

End point, you can't prove that a prayer cured anything, whereas we can prove that science cures diseases. So your point is invalid.

Anonymous said...

The idea of a being like God is so complex. Assuming you're going by all of your mythology.

Infinitely more complex than life on earth, right?

Why is it so much easier for people to believe that "God" can spontaneously come into being? I say spontaneously because you'll never hear someone explain where God came from, right?

Seriously, how can you be so dense and have such a lack of logic to think it's more probable that a God came into being than the concept of a single solution receiving the right impetus to start life?

Even with the odds stacked against abiogenesis, how can you think those are worse odds than the idea of God just magically appearing?

What scares me about religion is it seems to spit in the face of logic and cohesive, structural thought.

And as for the America bit, it's well documented that the majority of the founding fathers didn't believe in the concept of a Christian God. So feel free to gtfo :)