Majority of Americans Reject Theory of EvolutionNEW YORK (Oct. 23) – Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.These views are similar to what they were in November 2004 shortly after the presidential election.This question on the origin of human beings, asked both this month and in November 2004, offered the public three alternatives: 1. Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, and God did not directly guide this process; 2. Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, but God guided this process; or 3. God created human beings in their present form.The results were not much different between the answers to that question and those given when a specific timeline was included in the final alternative: God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years.Americans most likely to believe in only evolution are liberals (36 percent), those who rarely or never attend religious services (25 percent), and those with a college degree or higher (24 percent).White evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent), are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form.
This is why man invented Zantac.
reluctantatheist:
One in Geology and one in Computer Science.
It’s a bad habit, I know, and I apologize.
As I tried to point out earlier, none. The organic material must be buried en masse as part of the source rock sediments; terrestrial (land) animals, when they die, aren’t deposited in the sediments that end up accumulating the organic material that becomes oil?it’s nearly exclusively microscopic marine organisms that provide the organic mass.
The point I was trying to make is that the sun has a far greater influence on our climate, in a far shorter time, than anything humans can do.
Asking a reasoned and practical question is ?projecting emotional content??
No, and what fool would? But that’s not what’s happening?CO2 emissions are a ?natural? phenomenon; humans are just making more now.
If they’re ?wrecking? the planet then why has the US actually been able to improve our air quality while continually increasing how much we burn?
No argument here. Too bad we can’t make all those third-worlders do the right thing, huh?
As do I. You say, ?We’re stuck w/the damage,? I say, it’s not permanent?the more efficient we become at using fossil fuels and the more we understand the environmental impact it has, the cleaner it will get?because that has been demonstrated to be true. The earth’s eco-systems have proven to be much heartier than we once thought. Yes, we can do temporary, local damage to it, but they do recover. And in light of all that, I have no doubt that the cheap and plentiful energy source we have in petroleum, is not by accident.
jcc,
the mass produced automobile produces very little co2 now, catalytic convertors turn it to co & o2 (we all know CO2 is not poisonous, CO is, it bonds to iron in the bloodstream easier than o2 does, thus leading to asphyxiation). The reason our air quality is improving is that we are comparing it to the earlier half of the 20th century. You can claim it better or worse, and be right both ways, it all depends on your starting point.
My .02 on your last comment, fossil fuels are a limited resource, no one is pumping oil wells continuously only to find out they are filling up. 150 years ago, you could make the same argument that you stated about wood being cheap & plentiful, and by design, then after that coal, then after that, liquid hydrocarbons, so on and so forth. We keep progressing through more advanced and efficient fuel sources, just look at what has happened since the industrial revolution. Petroleum, while abundant & easily used than any previous fuel source is not very energy dense, by any means, and it leads me to believe it will go by the wayside as well.
jcc:
“it’s a bad habit, I know, and I apologize.”
I appreciate that. Likewise, sorry if I got a little outraged myself.
“As I tried to point out earlier, none.”
Is there any short version by which that can be proven? Some way to ferret out the DNA, molecular composition, etc. to provide evidence that there are no dinosaur remains involved in the creation of fuel? I am genuinely curious, is all. Link would be fine.
“The point I was trying to make is that the sun has a far greater influence on our climate, in a far shorter time, than anything humans can do.”
Be that as it may, I am curious as to how the sun’s flares impact the thinning ozone layer, the gradual poisoning of the water tables, the extinction of X amount of species a day, oil spills, the reduction of air quality (breathability).
“Asking a reasoned and practical question is ?projecting emotional content??
& I quote:
“And can you please explain to me why the advent of intelligent, tool-using, fossil-fuel-burning, life on this planet is such a non sequitur to you?“
And:
“You seem to think human activity is an unnatural consequence of our intelligence?that by using our ?evolved? brains to make use of an available and (so far) only practical energy source is somehow abnormal, even sinister.”
Also:
“It?s soooo funny how you all can only sing that one-note samba of doom and gloom?an how humans (i.e. the greatest ?accident? of the universe) can, merely by virtue of using our brains, possibly do all that damage.”
Please explain how that isn’t projecting emotional content.
“If they’re ?wrecking? the planet then why has the US actually been able to improve our air quality while continually increasing how much we burn?”
Improve? Please provide statistics. Or perhaps the censored EPA report of 2004.
“No argument here. Too bad we can’t make all those third-worlders do the right thing, huh?”
Well, too far gone in some places. We need to clean up our own backyard. Provide an example. Would’ve been nice if Shrub Jr. hadn’t pulled out of the Kyoto Treaty/Protocol. The Shrub admin. has been notoriously difficult in environmental issues.
“The earth’s eco-systems have proven to be much heartier than we once thought.”
I understand this (to a limited degree) better than most. However: despite planet Earth’s tremendous self-healing capabilities (such as the ocean’s capacity to disseminate radioactivity, for 1), we are indeed talking about a series of intricately linked, complex, fragile ecosystems.
Let’s take this down to the microcosmic level.
Muhammed Ali was a great boxer, capable of taking incredibly powerful blows to the body & head, & returned an incremental set of jabs, combined w/powerful hooks & crosses. Incrementally, he’d chip away at the opponent, until said opponent was worn away by attrition. Conversely, now that he has grown older, having taken too many shots to the head, is afflicted by Parkinson’s.
Likewise, another example, is that a child is capable of absorbing damage that would decimate an adult. Also, able to heal more quickly from broken bones, etc. Do we allow the child to then engage in these activities on a daily, even hourly basis? Of course not. Why? Because long-term damage will ensue.
If we take these micro-examples, & apply them on a larger scale, the ramifications are (at least to me) frightening.
We are seeing a great many natural disasters recently. Not talking about the tectonic 1′s (am unsure if solar flares or pollution impact these: probably not, is my guess).
Don’t get me wrong: I’m a humanist, ergo, I love humanity. But that doesn’t prevent me from pointing out my species innate capacity for short-term convenient solutions in lieu of long-term repercussions.
It’s both microcosmic as well as macrocosmic in scope, IMHO. It’s a matter of teaching people that
A. The earth is not a litter box
B. The earth isn’t a trash can
C. The earth is where we live
D. You don’t poo where you do (sorry!)
E. Until we have another place to live, we need to treat what we have w/a modicum of respect.
Changes need to be made. Not last-minute 1′s. As a species, we seem to (not always, but as a rule) resort to such. No, turning back the clock’s not an option (leastways, not a reasonable 1).
I for 1 am not looking forward to the day that my grandchildren (if ever I have any) need to wear Hazmat suits for a walk in the park.
I think those are all fair questions, & examples.
That’s my nickel’s worth, anyways.
Look Of Love Pony Express Hair
His original designs, such as the Pony Express and100% Human Hair Braids & Switches Butterfly Surprises Fabulous Falls Hair B Tweenz Honeyc…
chase the hottie .com
chase the hottie .com