Forty-six percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years, according to a survey released by Gallup on Friday.

That number has remained unchanged for the past 30 years, since 1982, when Gallup first asked the question on creationism versus evolution. Thirty years ago, 44% of the people who responded said they believed that God created humans as we know them today – only a 2-point difference from 2012…

The second most common view is that humans evolved with God’s guidance – a view held by 32% of respondents. The view that humans evolved with no guidance from God was held by 15% of respondents…

The numbers also showed a tendency to follow party lines, with nearly 60% of Republicans identifying as creationists, while 41% of Democrats hold the same beliefs…

According to Gallup’s Frank Newport…”It would be hard to dispute that most scientists who study humans agree that the species evolved over millions of years, and that relatively few scientists believe that humans began in their current form only 10,000 years ago without the benefit of evolution,” writes Newport. “Thus, almost half of Americans today hold a belief … that is at odds with the preponderance of the scientific literature.”

Anyone surprised?



  1. Rabble Rouser says:

    Hmm, 30 years, huh? Isn’t that when Ronnie Raygun was in charge? Could he have started it? NAH? Ronnie was too smart to let our education system go down for today’s training system.

  2. NewformatSux says:

    Liberals are always glorifying themselves because they think the Tuskegee experiments were a bad thing, even in the 90s it made newspaper headlines. Well how about the EPA conducting experiments with toxins on people now?
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/04/the-epas-unethical-pm2-5-air-pollution-experiments/

  3. Bo Donnelly says:

    I was thinking about this the other day, and it occurred to me that there isn’t anything in evolution for living forever. Well, I am going to live forever. I just say so. As a result, I’ll go with the holy rollers. If they’re right and they live forever too or come back to life or whatever, I’ll be ready for them at work.

    One other thing. If they’re right, will we still be having this discussion 5 billion eons from now? Come on Darwinians…you know what I’m talking about. If you all die and that’s all like you say, I guess not…

  4. kiwini says:

    “Nearly half of Americans haven’t learned anything about science or evolution in the last thirty years”

    REALLY?

    Gee… I wonder why it is then, that all the teachers’ unions keep insisting that they’re doing such a wonderful job?.

    Oh, wait a minute…. they promote themselves by voting en masse for what they see as best for themselves, regardless of what’s best for the kids. Look at tomorrow’s recall election in Wisconstein as an example of where the unions’ real loyalties are hiding.

    Tenure, fat retirement plans and all, why should they be greatly rewarded for such repeated dismal performance over a long period of time?…. and as more icing on the reeking cake, cost-per-seat for each student has doubled over those same three decades, while the results after graduation are revealing that a lot of kids have no marketable job skills, despite that increasingly expensive diploma.

    Teachers = good, systemic abuse of teachers by the unions for the union’s benefit, not so good.

    The teachers’ unions are all about the money, and the political clout that comes with it.

  5. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Anonymous revealing himself to the world insists that historical observation has nothing to teach us on the efficacy of where to inject a dollar into the economy when it comes to correcting a recession.

    The evidence is (from memory so its not exact–just relational) is that a dollar given to a poor person will circulate 5.7 times before it gets sequestered (saved) away. A dollar given to a rich person will circulate 1.3 times before being sequestered (invested off shore) away.

    In 2008, Obama injected money into the economy to mediate the recession and we are stumbling our way oh so slowly out of our recession. In the same circumstances, Europe cut taxes and cut programs in the “Austerity Move” recommended by economic retards here including Anonymous. The result is increasing recession/depression. Same as happened in Japan 15 years ago. Maybe its more complex, but the first impression is that you spend into a recession AND you inject the money as low into the base as possible.

    What is Anonymouses responding analysis?==Totally off point and irrelevantly he asks where the dollar comes from.

    Hard to believe he looks at assholes butt only finds himself. Anon and his fellow retards in the Puke Party need to put down the mirror and look at a little history.

    I know–facts do favor liberals.

    Reality—ain’t it a bitch?

  6. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    thatsmychin in near express capitulation on the issue says:
    6/4/2012 at 12:13 am

    Gosh, I dunno. Newton seemed to do OK with his wacky beliefs. I’m guessing the rest of us that are dragging the line will do OK as well. //// How we reveal ourselves so — and our wacky unsustainable beliefs that we cling to. So–when the statement is that scientists have to accept evolution in order to carry on with their studies, the response is to raise the religious beliefs of a scientist from 250 years ago? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Ouch, that makes my stomach ache.

    I even added the slop that perhaps MATH was an exception. And what did Newton primarily pursue outside religion and alchemy? Yes. You know its coming: MATH. Father of Calculus. He invented it in order to understand the orbits of the planets, laws of motion. MATHEMATICAL pursuits where its was stated up front did not require an understanding of evolution to pursue. MATH–the language of science, as the linked video says more than once.

    Well done chin. Complete and total default. I’m sure it won’t affect your thinking on the subject at all though.

    Science = when the facts change, you change your theory. Religion = when the fact change, double down, retreat 250 years, and burn the heretics.

    Yea, verily.

    • thatsmychin says:

      Sorry bobbo, just because you type a bunch of words does not mean that you correctly assesed the arguement. I think I mentioned something about brevity once upon a time….it seems to escape you. Any idiot can open a dictionary and use big words, reference wikipedia. Being able to accurately argue a premise requires a resonable intelligence.

      Give it one more try, and take a quick peek at the arguement I responded to before you add ketchup to the foot you placed in your mouth.

  7. Bo Donnelly says:

    I know anti-theists and atheists want me to believe them right now, but I say…let’s have this discussion 5 billion eons from now…

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Bo–just the opposite. I don’t care what you think, as easily as it is to prove you are wrong. No–I only wish you would stop being so stupid and start voting in your own best interests rather than be duped into some “values” position.

      But perhaps I jump too soon? Just because you want to claim persecution/interest just because others disagree with you doesn’t mean you are a puke or teabag.

      Just my gut reaction, or is it angels on my shoulder?

      Let us know would ya?

    • So what says:

      Since by that point (6 billion years or so) the earth will have been burned to a cinder by the expanding sun as it dies, I’ll pass and have the talk now.

      • Bo Donnelly says:

        Obviously it’s pointless to debate the issue now. Let’s agree to debate 5 billions eons from now if we’re all alive to do so…

  8. Keep it simple says:

    “Nearly half of Americans haven’t learned anything about science or evolution in the last thirty years.”

    The right to remain uninformed seems OK to me.

    Not everyone wants to be an activist. Some just want to stop and smell the non-hybridized roses and read quietly from their bible.

  9. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Related:

    http://cracked.com/blog/5-ways-college-accidentally-prepares-you-real-world/

  10. ± says:

     

    Does Palin have any panties on while riding that dinosaur?
     

  11. John says:

    Dear scientists:

    Please answer the following:

    The big bang came from ____.
    The elements of Time and Space support life because ____.
    A supreme being would
    a) create creatures which would perish if their environment changed.
    b) create creatures which could evolve with their environment.

    Thank you.

    • So what says:

      An almost infinitely compressed amount of extremely hot matter.

      Time and space do not support life, the elements for life are due to continued formation aging and the destruction of stars that produce the elements (see the periodic table) that life, in the earths case principally carbon is derived from. For potential mechanisms see Stanley Miller and Manfred Eigen.

      God doesn’t exist.

      Animals do not actively adapt to their environment, evolution and natural selection are not linear, random mutations in DNA provide the possibility of greater reproductive success for those that carry a specific trait that improves survival in certain conditions thereby providing a higher population that carry that trait. See Maitland and Edey “Blueprints” for a further very fine explanation Involving DDT and California Lace wings.

      It doesn’t matter how well a species may be integrated into it’s biological niche if a catastrophic event eliminates the possibility of reproduction the species will become extinct. If you take the last two T-rex on different continents they will be unable to reproduce as they are not local, it won’t matter how adaptive they might have been.

      • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

        On the contrary, everything can be reduced to pixels proving we’re in a matrix.

    • hmeyers says:

      Exactly! Science does not have answer to these questions.

      But that doesn’t stop atheist and humanist activists from throwing science out the window and then saying your religion is stupid.

      Now, your religion might be totally stupid in its own right, but even Richard Dawkins admits he can’t prove “God” doesn’t exist.

      Yet every day, false science is used to promote a climate of religious-hate.

      Just remember this:

      1. True science has no agenda. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, not social or political agendas.
      2. Science is not consensus. 6 billion people could agree PI = 3. This does not make PI = 3.
      3. Your religion might actually really be stupid, but the current body of knowledge science might not have the right set of knowledge to demonstrate this yet, but it may some day in the future. I’m just sayin’ …

    • Somebody_Else says:

      Dear religious nuts,

      Where did god come from?

      Thank you.

      If you think the universe we live in is to complex or well tuned to exist without a creator… how does postulating an omnipotent god simplify anything? Where did god come from?

    • Dallas says:

      Dear scientists:
      Please answer the following:

      That’s your problem right there! What makes you think Mother Nature owes us an explanation?

  12. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    I’ve always wanted to write a Dear John letter. I guess this is as close as I’ll ever get.

    John says:
    6/4/2012 at 7:26 pm

    Dear scientists:

    Please answer the following:

    The big bang came from ____./// From the link provided, as best as I understand it: from the fluctuations of quantum particles popping into and out of existence in empty space and becoming unbalanced causing a hyperinflation of space creating time and space which eventually becomes that super hot dot that so what references.

    The elements of Time and Space support life because ____. /// Mostly they don’t. Nice chart in the video about the compression of matter vs anti matter and what a short window life even has a chance to exist. This most intelligently designed universe is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 % HOSTILE to life–just like god hisself.

    A supreme being would
    a) create creatures which would perish if their environment changed. //// Again, 99.99999999999999 of all life (forms) present on life have become extinct. Homo Stupidest only here for .0000001% of the time life has existed on this orb. Evolving earth kills life forms off that don’t adapt==even as it is doing NOW!
    b) create creatures which could evolve with their environment. /// So far, only single celled entities have managed that trick.

    What would be supreme about a being wanting the company of stupid weak gullible hairless apes?

    I mean, there’s nothing supreme about me and I can barely stand it.

    Ha, ha.

    Thank you.

    • hmeyers says:

      Bobbo, you are all wrong.

      The universe is NOT hostile to life. It is very much friendly to life.

      There are certain classes of stars that emit tons of carbon — an oddity predicted non-scientifically by Hoyle — that is eerily strange.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_star

      They discover organic compounds on comets all the time. Almost like organic prerequisites for life are naturally made in nebula, oort clouds and such just waiting for a hospitable planet.

      The physics of this universe are so strangely tuned to generate life that virtually any planet the right size and temperature should have life after a few hundred million years. Like Earth.

      Organic precursors are common on comets, asteroids, little moons like Europa and in fact the galaxy is littered with them and stars pollute the galaxy with carbon residue every where.

      Fusion:
      4 Hydrogen —> 1 Helium
      3 Helium —> 1 Carbon (!!!!!!)

      Stars are carbon factories.

      • hmeyers says:

        Add:

        The atmosphere of Venus is choked with carbon-dioxide. The planet is too hot for liquid water.

        Meanwhile, Mars may have supported life in the past and plenty of evidence indicates it had liquid oceans but insufficient gravity to retain an atmosphere in the long run.

        The differences between Earth vs. Venus/Mars:

        1. Mars is too small to prevent the escape of gases.
        2. Venus is too hot to support liquids.

        Other than that, the composition of Venus and Mars are nearly identical to Earth. (The same with the moon, actually).

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          HM – thank you for the challenge. Totally inept, but still welcomed.

          blah, blah, blah.

          What % of the volume of the universe do you think is compatible with any life at all?

          I’ll wait for your best guesstimate.

          • hmeyers says:

            I have no clue.

            Red dwarf stars have life spans of trillions of years, but are prone to solar flares and their lesser level of heat means any planet close enough to have liquid water is also tidally locked (same side facing the star = no night and day = temperate extremes like the moon).

            So the above would seem to imply yellow dwarf stars (our star classification) are the most likely candidates.

            There are more than 500 of these stars within a 50 light year radius of Earth. Most are of the same age as our sun.

          • So what says:

            “I have no clue.” Gee wouldn’t have guessed.

  13. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Here is Yahoo’s report on the same subject:

    http://news.yahoo.com/nearly-half-americans-believe-creationism-212000630.html

    Humorously, FARK reported the same percentage of people thinking sex takes place in the champagne room. You gotta laugh at that.

  14. The Watcher says:

    Funny thing…. I’m a very conservative Republican, but also a believer in Evolution….

    Guided, perhaps, or at least started, by someone/something. My own view is that He started this mess, realized what a mess it would become, and took off for parts unknown before being blamed…. Having a really bad day, I’d guess….

    • orchidcup says:

      You are a Deist.

      de·ism, n.

      The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

      • Sea Lawyer says:

        Which, if a person is going to insist on believing that the universe *must* have been created by something, is at least the most reasonable framework to go with; though still possessing the glaring flaw that if everything that exists must have been created, who created the creator? So even in that case, “god” can’t be a single supreme entity, but one of a succession.

  15. Philip says:

    It is interesting that just like Climate change we are told “the science is in” with Evolution and all scientists agree… The science isn’t in and not all scientist agree.

    As with Climate change if you do not go with the herd you are marginalised and told you are stupid…
    Example “Nearly half of Americans haven’t learned anything about science or evolution in the last thirty years”
    Another example the artwork attached to this story. Suggesting that because one does not believe in Evolution, one must have only read ONE book. Well there are many good books discussing the science.

    I am sure I will be told to shut up slave for daring to say Evolution isn’t a done deal.

    http://www.creation.com

    • orchidcup says:

      Science is constantly evolving.

    • Sea Lawyer says:

      I’d say that the only reason why people believe in creationism is because of religious brainwashing, usually through childhood indoctrination. It certainly isn’t because of the plethora of demonstrable evidence supporting it.

  16. TThor says:

    Don’t like Bill Maher very much but “Religious” is really worth watching: http://youtu.be/7f8fMmMhwRg

    • pedro says:

      Nothing Maher is worth watching

    • Dallas says:

      I listen to all of Bill’s shows via free iTunes published podcast.

      He’s witty, intelligent and has great guests on his show – including the occasional right wing loon.

  17. JimD, Boston, MA says:

    Carbon Stars ? If only there were Petroleum Stars !!!

  18. Mr Ed says:

    Republicans=Stupid.
    Proof everywhere.

    • pedro says:

      I’ll subscribe to that. But it is a 3 part equation:

      Republicans=Democrats=Stupid.
      Proof everywhere.

      • ± says:

        “Proof everywhere” indeed.

        The shit we are in is from R and D voters.

        Proof everywhere.

  19. Airsick says:

    What is with all the religious bashing? Doesn’t this study show that you can be a Christian (i.e. religious) and still believe in evolution?

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      What is, is that if you don’t believe in evolution, family planning, vaccines, equality of all the races, that homosexuality is part of evolutionary diversity, that science should be taught in schools === you are most likely religious, Christianity being one of the largest flavors.

      Its one thing to have “doubts” about what science is not clear on, quite another to firmly disbelieve what science is sure about.

      It hardly matters that “some” christians can go against the tide, the tide still comes in. Stupid does not need to be respected for the exceptions that exist.

      Easy Peasy.

      • Airsick says:

        Sorry bobbo. Is this relevant to what the study said? No. I’m not talking about homosexuality or any of that stuff. You just want to take all the people who don’t hold the same religious beliefs as you and put them in your Stupid Box.

        My point is that since the time of Darwin’s first edition of Origins Christians AND Atheists have both embraced or questioned evolution.

        You are the most ignorant kind of atheist: the religious kind. And a religious zealot to boot! You should add that to your little tag there.

        Evolution isn’t one of those things “science is sure about.” Disbelieve or not, science is the one thing that can ALWAYS be questioned (of course within reason). There are very good and very rational flaws in the theory of evolution.

        But because religious atheists like you *depend* on evolution to maintain the survival of your religion you cannot question it or even tolerate anyone questioning it because to do so is a heresy.

        Religious atheists like you are the ones who are more dangerous to science than any of the Christians in this study who do or do not believe in evolution because YOU MADE SCIENCE THE DOCTRINE FOR YOUR RELIGION and now nobody can question a religious doctrine without being branded a heretic.

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          Ha, ha. You mean I’ve been wrong my whole life? Up is down?? Black is white???? Cats and Dogs lying down together???????

          Well, science and religion can be understood for what they are by those who wish, and muddled together by those who wish that.

          Science – reproducible results.
          Religion – dogmatic beliefs held regardless of facts.

          You can question anything you like. You want to question evolution? Fine === what is your question? Ha, ha. and you don’t have one. Thats how dogma works. NOTHING behind the words you hum.

          Sad we can’t all live in the worlds we would all create if we could. “To the stars, and beyond!!!!”

          Silly Hoomans.

        • Sea Lawyer says:

          It’s so cute when people characterize atheism as a religion as if to say that acceptance of explanations for natural phenomena based on observable evidence is the same thing as the belief in fairies, unicorns, supreme beings and other patently ridiculous things.

          “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”

          • ± says:

            There are plenty of “atheists” to whom their “lack of belief” is a religion. Based on my own observation maybe 25%. These are the most vocal type, so it actually seems like more than 25%.

            A real atheist just plain old doesn’t have a belief in something not known to be true.

            Do you believe in polka dotted kangaroos jumping up and down on the back side of the third moon circling the 6th planet of Rigel?

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            SL–its “better” than that. When airsick wants to belittle and embarass something, he calls it a “religion.”

            Its like your own mother calling you a “son of a bitch” as if that is an insult to you rather than to herself.

            Yaaaa – you so stupid, you believe things in the same way I do!!

            Yuk, yuk. Can there be a science of religion? Testing the benefit of prayer or the predictive power of the bible? What to do with nothing but failures? For any religion that is a science===you find another freaking religion.

            Quite amusing really.

          • Airsick says:

            I characterize evolution as a religion because as bobbo’s reaction shows: If you don’t believe it you are stupid and don’t belong. This is typical of the way cult followers treat people outside the cult, and it is bobbo’s typical reaction to stuff like this.

            The other reason is that questioning evolution is treated as heresy. Also typical cult behaviour, and also clearly observable in bobbo’s replies.

            But I did not mean what I said as ridicule but merely to point out that Christianity and evolution have been side-by-side for a very long time. Again, I was not ridiculing anyone: I was asking why Christians were being ridiculed.

            Evolution is becoming the religion of science, proven by bobbo’s statements that no longer separate “evolution” from “science” as though the two are the same. Even the existence of this study shows: the common perception now is that intelligence starts at believing in evolution.

            But as I pointed out: many Christians do in fact believe in evolution. So what is the problem?

    • Holdfast says:

      In developed countries other than the USA most Christians do believe in evolution. I understand that the Pope says he does. Christians also believe in welfare too. A lot are “pro choice” even if Catholics are told they shouldn’t be.

      This seems to leave your country with a comparable education and cultural level to somewhere in the third world. Embarrassing I suspect…

      • Dallas says:

        That’s because many Christians are Cafeteria Catholics – which is a good thing.

        DEF:
        It is sometimes a synonymous phrase for “Catholic-in-name-only (or CINO)”, “dissident Catholic”, “heretical Catholic”, “cultural Christian”, or “liberal Catholic”, but has also been applied to dissident traditionalist Catholic groups like the Society of St Pius X.[3]
        The term has no status in official Catholic teachings. However, the practice of selective adherence to the teachings of the Church has been repeatedly condemned by the Church as heresy, in the Magisterial teachings and through the teaching of the Popes. In a homily delivered on April 18, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI clarified the relation of dissent to faith:[4]

  20. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Hoping Airsick doesn’t rub off on me says:
    6/6/2012 at 4:49 am

    I characterize evolution as a religion because as bobbo’s reaction shows: If you don’t believe it you are stupid and don’t belong. /// Yeah, thats “your” characterization and it is uniquely yours and cannot be found in any dictionary. Why don’t you join the reasonable, rational world and use the dictionary for the meaning of your words?

    This is typical of the way cult followers treat people outside the cult, and it is bobbo’s typical reaction to stuff like this. /// Its also how informed people treat idiots and loons. I wonder how we can tell the cultists from the rationalists? Heres one method: do they make up meanings for the words they use? If so, you likely are dealing with a cultist. OR – do they use objective third party sources for evaluating the subject at hand?==could be a rational person. you are dealing with.

    The other reason is that questioning evolution is treated as heresy. /// More imprecise made up religious language and thinking on your part. When you say you question evolution==all I said is “like what?” Now you call that a heresy. I say, your failure to be specific in response does not make you a heretic==only an idiot. Prove me wrong. Here I am welcoming a disagreement with my “faith.” WHAT do you question about evolution? On your statement, most likely I can tell you what the correct information is or that you are abysmally stupid and to educate yourself. “Heresy” will not cross my lips.

    Also typical cult behaviour, and also clearly observable in bobbo’s replies. /// I guess when you are an admitted member of a cult, the whole world looks like a cult? Heeee, heee. Your stupidity cracks me up.

    But I did not mean what I said as ridicule but merely to point out that Christianity and evolution have been side-by-side for a very long time. Again, I was not ridiculing anyone: I was asking why Christians were being ridiculed. //// Is it too cute to say that many question Christianity?

    Evolution is becoming the religion of science, proven by bobbo’s statements that no longer separate “evolution” from “science” as though the two are the same. Even the existence of this study shows: the common perception now is that intelligence starts at believing in evolution. /// Thats awfully garbled up but I sense I agree with what you are grasping at. Kinda like physics is grounded in gravity, not God sucking all the time? Same with evolution. Like gravity==its everywhere, imbued on deeper analysis where on the surface it seems more removed. Like entropy.

    But as I pointed out: many Christians do in fact believe in evolution. So what is the problem? /// Those who don’t.

    • Sea Lawyer says:

      I wouldn’t even waste the time to argue with people who believe that myths about supernatural beings reflects reality. If there is a valid theory to challenge evolution though natural selection for how there exists the diversity of life we see today, I say they present it. Quoting nonsensical stories from a book of fables does not constitute a valid theory.

      I’m am firmly in agreement with the esteemed Thomas Jefferson, whom I quoted earlier, in that religion and revelation deserves to be ridiculed as an absurdity. Just because a person holds nonsensical beliefs does not mean he should be respected for them.

    • thatsmychin says:

      Holy Crap dude, do you hate evangelicals, “pushing” their faith on everyone around them. You are only 10-15% of the arguement, yet you single-handedly dominate 80% of this blog by pushing and fighting for your world view.

      99% of your sworn enemies lay on the couch watching TV, they’re not in your face, they pose no threat. Do you even ‘get’ what you are doing here? If my MATH is correct, you’re literally 122 times more annoying than the guy knocking on your door preaching salvation, but also causing 92% of those that read your wikipedia knowledge to reject your world view! It’s like you’re playing for my team! Go Team Bobbo!

  21. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and Jr Culture Critic says:

    thatsmychin incoherently says:
    6/7/2012 at 12:45 am

    Holy Crap dude, do you hate evangelicals, // No. I’m one myself.

    “pushing” their faith on everyone around them. /// I suppose you can “push” faith, but it is only damaging on its being accepted. Something each one of us controls.

    You are only 10-15% of the arguement, // please identify your numerator and denominator.

    yet you single-handedly dominate 80% of this blog by pushing and fighting for your world view. /// Define dominate.

    99% of your sworn enemies lay on the couch watching TV, they’re not in your face, they pose no threat. /// 100% of everyone including cats and dogs lay on the couch ..etc.. at some point during the week. Its what they do when they aren’t on the couch that matters. I think you need some work on your equations.

    Do you even ‘get’ what you are doing here? // Not in the same way you probably do. Pray tell:

    If my MATH is correct, /// Ha, ha. Chin said “math.”

    you’re literally 122 times more annoying than the guy knocking on your door preaching salvation, but also causing 92% of those that read your wikipedia knowledge to reject your world view! /// Gee the results of your mathematical analysis overwhelm me.

    It’s like you’re playing for my team! Go Team Bobbo! // Hey, we dominate as best we can, whatever the game is.

    Yea, verily.

  22. AlBme says:

    “Spirituality is for those seeking understanding. Religion is for those seeking reward.”

    Alcatraz, Episode 1.09

    God exists only in your mind — perhaps in your heart. Once the veil of death overcomes us, as it will for all, God will die with you.

    • Sea Lawyer says:

      I tend to view the line “I’m spiritual but not religious” as a copout. Generally it’s from people who want to believe in some sort of mysticism but deep down don’t actually buy it.

  23. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and Jr Culture Critic says:

    In one of the better episode of “Closer to Truth” a couple of neuroscientists were interviewed regarding how the brain forms belief systems.

    Sad that reality all comes down to the nuts and bolts of the brain: electricity and chemicals.

    But thats all it is.

  24. RR says:

    Airsick,
    “I characterize evolution as a religion because as bobbo’s reaction shows: If you don’t believe it you are stupid and don’t belong.”

    If you don’t believe in gravity either you are both stupid and don’t belong. If you don’t believe the earth is globe, you are both stupid and don’t belong.

    Evolution is the FACT that species change. Evolutionary theory is the theory, which is supported beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence, for the mechanisms that drive that change.

    But go ahead and believe that the Earth sucks and humans appeared directly from dirt.

    “The other reason is that questioning evolution is treated as heresy.”
    This is untrue. There have been numerous challenges to evolutionary theory including but not limited to gene theory, neutral theory, punk eek and socio-biology.

    But go ahead and peddle willful ignorance.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and Jr Culture Critic says:

      Good point regarding FACT of evolution vs THEORY. I too often forget that.

      Its weird we hoomans can view a set of facts and come to such wildly opposing positions. Science vs Religion. Global Warming vs Status Quo. dumbo vs pukes. Victims vs Class Warriors.

      Perhaps its an initial “proof” that there are multiple universes. We live in two occupying the same space and time?==only causation changes.

      Ha, ha. Silly hoomans. Believing the opposite of reality.