Replacing science with belief
by Volker Weber
If you need proof that going to church makes you stupid then read the results of this poll.
Comments
With respect Volker, might it not be that they are just stupid in the first place, and that the Christian context allows them to express their stupidity without repercussions?
I don't think people get more stupid, the more church they go to.
America - The most powerful nation in the world? Just a bunch of medieval blockheads and madmen with laser guided guns ...
Yes, that is perfectly possible. It just correlates, but is not necessarily causal.
more on the gallup website:
Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence, while just as many say that it is just one of many theories and has not been supported by the evidence. The rest say they don't know enough to say. Forty-five percent of Americans also believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago. A third of Americans are biblical literalists who believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word.
the question remains, how this numbers would like in germany ...
Markus, that's the Christian Jihad ... There is no difference anymore between the ayatollahs and the preachers from the bible belt.
Don't read too much into this. We all know the results depend on the questions asked, and the article does not give the questions, only the statistics, and we all know there are 'lies, damn lies and statistics'.
The elections are over, Bush won (unfortunately) - get over it!!
What is very interesting: WHAT is the actual word of god? The Hebrew version? The Arameic version? The Greek version? The Latin version? The German version? The English King James version? The new English version? Or all the text passages that have been rewritten, remove or added over the centuries?
I speak German, English and (rusty) Latin and was comparing Bible parts: the content is VERY different....
... and then the lamb opened the seventh seal ...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6307160233
;-) stw
in fact there is not much of a difference. both are fundamentalistic in principle: you have to aggree (because they "know" they're right), or else ... and what makes it worth: they are feeding each other.
Honestly curious and not trying to stir the pot -- what would the results of the same survey be in Germany? In Spain?
--Ed (who doesn't go to church, thus... ;)
Ed, simply put, they would differ a lot.
Ed, my (serious) guess would be that about 2-3 percent of Germans (at most) share most of the views of the mainstream Christian/evangelical US Americans.
Volker.... the statement that you think people who believe in creationism are stupid speaks volumes within itself. Neither creationism nor evolution are proven, nor can either ever be. Both require a "leap of faith" and the acceptance of either without looking at the other is foolishness within itself.
If you believe so heavily in evolution, what would you say to those physicists who can prove that the earth is only about 13,000 years old? In order to obtain it's original rotationl velocity, the earth must have been set in motion. Since that time it's been slowing down. By taking into account the amount by which it's slowing down, and extrapolating back to what it's original velocity must have been to start the motion, phsyicists can come up with about 13k years - a very real conflict with the 4 billion year estimate given by others.
Which one is true? Physics versus a bunch of old bones. You've decided, apparently, and anyone who believes differently is declared stupid.
As I stated previously, your statement speaks more about you than it does those who you declare stupid.
You definitely made my day. :-)
Jon, You may want to read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html#proof20
as well as this:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cefac.htm#1.6
The claim that physicists can prove the earth is only 13000 years old is not true. Debating creationism vs evolution can take days, so I'm not suggesting we go down that road. I just thought you might want to know that the particular proof you referenced has been discredited since at least 1982.
Maybe Jon just took the first "fact" that he could find here just for the sake of an argument. Still, I like the story about tree rings. Must be a hard time for creationism if Sequoias have to lend a helping hand ... er .. leaf to prove the creationist theory.
Yes, it was for the sake of argument.... plus, to make Volker's day.
