The article (may I add: written by Fox news - instant red flag) doesn't prove that there are 300 sextillion stars. It says that there is a belief in 300 sextillion stars. I have no clue where they end, nor do I have any reason to know. Every action in every living being's history on earth points to evolution.

Don't get me wrong, the evidence to both is substantial, but I've talked to scientists over this issue and I've talked to religious leaders over this issue and it's pretty obvious what the case is. Doesn't really matter how you come up with it.

Yeah, this is exactly the sort of thing Fox News would make up.

1. Lie about the number of stars
2. ?
3. Profit

I think neither Invictus nor I can be placed in the category of Young Earth Creationists. I'm not sure about Sbyvl36 as I haven't seen many of his posts. I assumed that he was being a bit satirical himself. I accept evolution as a theory of biology. It seems to be well research and studied. It isn't a threat to my religious faith at all. Science by definition doesn't really have anything to say about the existence or the actions of God.

Theistic evolution is even the official position of the Catholic Church. The silly people who do intellectual somersaults to explain how the Grand Canyon was made during the Flood are hardly representative of Christianity as whole, or even represent a plurality. It's just that they make the most noise and therefore draw the most attention.

Because they draw the most attention people who aren't Christian apply these people's ideas to the religion as whole. That's why obiwanobiwan took the radio host's hamfisted satire and extrapolated that the guy really wanted to impose a theocratic dictatorship.

THe guys radio show only reaches about a million people. That's a lot but not by any means a major market share. Even if he was trying to establish a theocratic dictatorship he'd have a tough row to hoe.

It's satire. Going to church is about as good for you as OBamacare, which is to say, meh! But leabe it to Obitardobitard to not get the satire then claim it isn't funny because *he* doesn't get it, like he is the judge and jury of all things funny.

No, obitard, once again you epic fucking fail. You are mor elike the brash and impulsive obiwan of Episode 1 than the wise Obiwan of 2-6.

@Crazy
"Which statistics, hammac?"
Unless you know the sample size, the question, etc., etc., the numbers are to be taken with a pinch of salt - to quote from one of my favourite sources - Jefferson Airplane (yeah, sad and old, I know)
"Crazy Miranda
lives on propaganda she believes anything she reads
it could be one side or the other
Free Press or Time Life covers
she follows newsprint anywhere it leads"

I believe in evolution, but I do not believe that *everything* was started spontaneously. I believe that God caused the Big Bang, and told Moses to tell everyone else that the world was only 3,000 years old. How many people would have bought into the idea of evolution in 100 BC? God didn't lie; he just did not use time as an objective measure.

Or God could just have removed some carbon from certain rocks and put dinosaur bones in the ground just to test our faith. Who knows for sure.

The point is that the origin of the world is completely irrelevant. I prefer the here and now. What happened thousands or millions or billions of years ago does not matter to me. The fact is that I am here, in 2012. I prefer to not waste my time on crap like this.

@ hammac

I think I understood your point but was it directed at obiwan or me or both? I cited the polls in response to the assertion that 40% of Americans were Young Earth Creationists. That didn't seem likely so I looked at the survey to find out what was going on. The question was about humans being created as is, not earth being 10,000 years old. Then I cited some other questions from the poll that seem to lend credence to what several are saying here. The topic of Creationism vs. Evolution is one that a minority on both sides care deeply about and most could really give a rip.

It is pretty obvious that the talk-show host was saying "Well if you can tax me for not getting healthcare, then we should be able to tax people for not going to church, after all going to church has been shown as a healthy habit."

Thomas Jefferson is dead.



That's where he went.

wow I have to agree with gunfighter for once...unless you are studying or researching science, the formation of the universe and the earth doesn't really matter.

OK...once more unto the breach, dear friends...here I go:

@Santa:

"and just to spell it out for you before irrelevant George Orwell references are vomited all over this thread, the sports world and the education world are continually rocked by such scandals. So by using your inane logic, School and Sports are bad for you."

Indulge my propensity for ego and allow me to quote a previous statement of mine, it actually being pertinent for a change and not MERELY an ego trip:

"Going to Church may not hurt your health--I'm sure Crazy Anglican and semck are none the worse for it--but still, it doesn't help...it's such a gaping stupid claim"

I am NOT, thus, making the statement, as you seem to assume I'm making that Church necessarily and always hurts you, emotionally, intellectually, or otherwise. Again, Crazy Anglican and semck are perfect counterexamples.

Likewise, those who play football (er, "my" football, I suppose, as the other football, the one Crazy Anglican would likely call "football," I call that soccer, I'm afraid, right or wrong) don't necessarily suffer injury on the field or a Jerry Sandusky trauma in the locker room.

They are POTENTIAL dangers, and thus must be accounted for, but not NECESSARY dangers.

I was--and am still--jabbing at the ignorant comment that the Christian in the article made that "we all know the Church is good for your health" as an absolute statement.

And it's NOT. For some people, it is; for others, it's a horrifying experience...and yes, I would reference that for some, it can lead to Orwellian consequences, or worse. Same with football and, yes, even school and academics--however much I love the former and have practically lived my life for the latter, they CAN lead to harmful consequences for some and are not, always, in every circumstance, an absolute "good."

Very little, if ANYTHING, is absolutely good to the point where you can say "We all know this is good for your health" full-stop. Even something like water can be poisoned, and even air can be polluted...and there are even those who are physically harmed and nearly allergic to something as seemingly-harmless and always-beneficial as light.

"But Obi, you're being ridiculously nitpicky here" you may say, "as let's face it, ALMOST EVERYONE benefits from air, water, and light, so your statement is absurd."

And that's true--clearly over 99% of the world population would agree readily that water, air, and light is good for and indeed vital to their health.

But if we're going to play it THAT way and analyze this statistically...

I'd say YOUR comparison of harm-by-sports/school pales in the same way to harm-by-Church/religion.

How many football players (of either kind) have become suicide bombers?
How many footballers have denied gays rights on the basis of their Holy Playbook?
How many mathematical whizzes have been told that if they sin against Pi they will go straight to Math Hell (however amusing that might be?)
How many holy wars have been fought between theatre freaks and band geeks?

Fact of the matter is, if we play statistics, your counterexample is revealed to be as silly as my air/water/light one in this context.

What's more, the nature of the harm is different as well--

About the worst atrocity that can be attributed to a teacher or coach WOULD be a molestation charge--which don't get me wrong, is a very sickening and grievous charge indeed...

But I think all here would agree it's not quite on par with suicide bombings and holy wars and the feeling of terrible insecurity and guilt that religion can bring about...

In short--

Religion is markedly "worse for your health" than sports or school on the whole, statistically and in the magnitude and scope of the atrocity (ie, a molestation charge, as disgusting and horrific as it is for the one or few children who suffer from such a monster, is mostly limited to those children and their parents and friends, whereas the spillover collateral that religion causes is, as all here must agree, far, far worse, and has so very many times affected everyone from a few people to an entire state to tens of millions in many states and of separate faiths warring against one another.)

Again, to be sure I'm understood and my meaning is not misconstrued:

I AM NOT saying this is the necessary course with religion, and that all who attend Church are doomed to become Westboro Baptist loonies or murderous crusaders or jihadists (if we jump faiths a bit.)

For many, Church CAN have a positive effect...again, Crazy Anglican and semck are proof as much of this. Do I still condone Churches? Not in the slightest. But I am at the very least reasonable enough to say that, despite the dozens of reasons why I feel society as a whole would be better off with their influence severely diminished and society as a whole being mostly secular and not theistic, I CAN at the very least admit to some good coming from Churches to some people, however much I feel the bad overall produced ultimately outweighs the good.

HOWEVER, again, I think it's absurd to say, then, that "everyone knows" Church is good for you when, in fact, such an absolute statement has no basis and is invalid, and furthermore, I think your--albeit sarcastic--analogy regarding schools and sports and harm from that to be in error quantitatively and qualitatively in terms of the harm produced and how much harm is produced and the likelihood of said harm being produced.

@SD:

"66% of Republican voters in Mississippi, one of the most conservative states, wouldn't equal 66% of the population. In 2008, for instance, McCain got 56% of the Mississippi vote, Obama got 43%. So 2/3 (66%) of that 56% would be about 38%...less than 40%. So I do doubt the 40% mark even if I accept the 66% figure as true."

Well, that'd seem to imply the 66% of Creationists would all be Republican. As much as it probably is the case that the majority of YEC are Republican, I would not go so far as to mix my religious and political affiliations so easily and match one necessarily to the other...

Surely some of the 43% that voted for Obama could very well have been Left-leaning and a Creationist.

I know the GOP has a (well-earned) reputation as being the more prone to this sort of religious nonsense, but it by no means has exclusive rights to it--there can be Democrats that are just as foolish and feel the world is 10,000 years old or less as well.

Maybe it wasn't 66%, I don't know, just going by the article, I'm just saying a figure close to 2/3 in the heart of the Bible Belt wouldn't surprise me.

"And I agree with Santa. I don't currently attend any form of religious institution, but have attended institutions of three different faiths regularly at different times in my life, and I do think that church does do good things for many people."

As to that, and the rest of your statement that follows, see the response I gave to Santa, as I feel it's applicable and, as I already seem to be racking up space taken up in my responses, don't want to be too repetitive if I can avoid it and endeavor to make said responses a little less brick-like and a bit more accessible.

@Crazy Anglican:

"That latest gallup poll that cites 40% of Americans believe something over another is based on this statement. "God created human beings pretty much as they are now around 10,000 years ago". Note that it says nothing about God creating the world at that time so it isn't saying 40% are YEC advocates."

True, but I think you'd have to admit that, again, most of those responding in such a way, saying that GOD created human beings as they are 10,000 years ago, probably DO believe in a Young Earth, as the opposite would seem absurd...

Believing God created the world 4.6 billion years ago, and yet he only created humanity, his prize creature, 10,000 years ago?

What's more, that statement has the entire "God created man" bit, so clearly it's coming from a Creationist standpoint...add in the above matter, and I think we can safely assume MOST answering "Yes" to that question would be doing so believing that God created Man AND the World 10,000 or so years ago or sooner still...the Genesis account only separates Creation by days, and while some Christian Apologetics may use the "time may be different for God than it is for us" argument, regardless of the logic or illogic of that claim, nevertheless, again, MOST people answering "Yes" to this question are likely doing so with the unstated belief in a Young Earth between agreeing to God creating man and doing so 10,000 years ago or sooner.

" If I believe that God created the Cro-Magnons (and I do, I just believe He created the Neanderthals too), then I could be placed in that catergory even though I am most decidedly not a YEC advocate."

1. Again, I'd say you're probably in the minority with that idea, as most who in the survey agree to God+Creation+human beings "pretty much as they are now" (in other words, pretty much eliminating evolution, if God created them as they are now rather than allowing hundreds of thousands to millions of years for mammals and apes to evolve) and

2. I hate to say it, but your country of birth ALSO factors into that--no denying that there are far more YECs and far more religious fanatics in American than in Britain...as far as I've heard, the Church of England's power and influence has waned considerably and is almost an afterthought to some (though for an odd reason, there seems to me, just from the news I get and the YouTube debates and BBC shows I watch, to be a rising influx in Muslim influence, or at least a louder Muslim voice in Britain...if you or one of your fellow compatriots would be good enough to explain that one to be, I'd be very interested as to why on Earth that is...Spain I could understand, what with its previous history with parts under Muslim rule, but why Britain?)...

In any case, AMERICAN Churches are considerably more powerful and louder, particularly among the Southern Baptist and Evangelical bases, and THOSE bases trend very much towards Creationism and YEC.

Thus, perhaps more Christians in Britain can come to the "Creation without a Young Earth" conclusion, but I'd say, as this question was posed to AMERICANS, most of them who answered "Yes" would be far more likely to do so with a YEC slant in mind given the pro-Creationism and anti-Evolution slant that many take among those bases (and before someone reads this and says "I am from this base and *I* don't agree with YEC, I side with CA, good on you, but again, I'm speaking purely statistically here, and there's really no debating that statistically Americans who answer "Yes" to this question are far more likely to to so with a YEC slant in mind than perhaps a British sample would.)


@Sybvl36:

"There is scientific proof that the sun is shrinking 5 feet/hour. Thus the sun would have to have been as big as the orbit of the earth 20 million years ago. You can see why this is impossible. Also, there is no evidence for civilization beyond c. 4500 BC. This makes it more likely the earth was created c. 500 bc then c. 5 bya"

...

I'm not even going to respond to that, I'll leave that to someone far more scientifically-qualified (and likely more patient as well) to respond to...

"Yeah, I thought it was pretty obviously a satirical poke at taxing inactivity as in Obamacare. No real need to stir up the evolutionists and creationists on this issue The real idea seems to be is it okay to tax people on what they don't do. I think Obi might agree and disagree depending on what you're to be taxed for not doing."

To be honest, I could, as I've stated, see it was a satire...as I've said, I just don't think it was smartly-done satire.

What's more, it's really that idea (one I see made-in-jest-but-not-really-in-jest, if you get my drift) that "we all know Church is good for you" (which I've gone to great lengths to try and show why I think that's bunkum) and the unspoken corollary idea that atheism is somehow "worse" for your health and for you as a person that I wished to speak out on.

That, and the fact that, while THIS is a joke, it is no joke that Church influences State FAR too much in America.

Look no further than the "Creationist Museum" in Kansas or the many states with or attempting to pass laws/school codes that would force science teachers to teach a dogma (I refuse to even say "theory" as no self-respecting scientist has backed it and there is no debate on the matter in the scientific community that this is wrong) of "Intelligent Design" alongside actual science, ie, Evolution.

Now, I'm very much opposed to religion--I thonk I've made that abundantly clear. :)

BUT I'm also a fan of John Stuart Mill (odd, as Nietzsche found Mill to be a "blockhead," but then, I think nearly all of Nietzsche's ideas on politics are rather blockheaded myself, it's his literary criticism and existential comments and ideas as well as his commentary on both the genealogy and nature of religions that I hold him in high regard for) and Mill, of course, in "On Liberty," makes one of the best-ever articulated points on this matter--

What you do in the sanctity of your own private home and your private life, so long as it doesn't affect me adversely, is completely and utterly your own choice, and you're free to it.

I'm as free to watch Oliver/Jacobi/Gibson/Branagh/Hawke/Tennant in a row do Hamlet's Soliloquy as you are to read the Bible.

It's the reason why, despite the numerous invites I've gotten from friends and from strangers I've debated alike over the years to come over to their Bible Study groups, I always turn it down--

That doesn't seem kosher or kind of me...in public, sure, I'll debate, it's public, it's the democratic free ground of the people, as it were, there is no sanctity of privacy.

But going to a Bible Study where people discuss their work and then in my turn say why I feel it's wrong, immoral, or both seems as rude and out of step...I, after all, wouldn't like it if a person came over while I was reading Shakespeare in the privacy of my room and started trying to persuade me he wasn't worth a grain of salt as an author...

In the privacy of your home, you're free to your books and your ideals, and I'm free to mine--so, as much as I dislike religion, I have no problem with adults going to Church when, after all, I go to the theatre...we're both going somewhere for something that we feel fulfills us, and both are privately-owned, so as long as we keep to our separate Houses, as it were, there's no problem.

There IS a problem, however, when one House barges in on another, which is what is occurring too-too much in America, and that barging-in House is always, it seems, a House of God.

The Science Class is a House for Darwin, NOT for Genesis.
If parents want to teach their kids Genesis, fine--so long as it is done at home or in "their" House, namely, their Church.
Evolutionists and Atheists such as myself don't barge into Church and demand Darwin be taught alongside Genesis...

Science has it's House, and Religion has it's House--they should be separate, but the Church keeps pushing itself on the State and, by proxy, into the Classroom, and THERE I have the problem.

Denying the rights to private marriage for gays on the basis of the Church?
THERE I have the problem.
Denying a woman's right to choose over a religious slant?
THERE I have the problem (however you feel about abortion, you must admit that denying it based on a religious slant is wrong...along matters of legality is another matter, but along a religious slant is just intrusive and wrong.)

So THAT'S mainly what I took from and wished to address out of the article.

So in obi's world, school shootings like those at Virginia Tech, Columbine, etc etc etc...don't happen? Those are very much the product of the society that develops around many institutions of learning and their ways of marginalizing people, and I think they're much worse than a molestation charge.

@Invictus:

"Theistic evolution is even the official position of the Catholic Church. The silly people who do intellectual somersaults to explain how the Grand Canyon was made during the Flood are hardly representative of Christianity as whole, or even represent a plurality. It's just that they make the most noise and therefore draw the most attention."

1. I'd submit that "theistic evolution" is very nearly an oxymoron, if not explicitly one...it's certainly something that is susceptible to morphing into Intelligent Design or outright Creationism (and yes, I know Darwin was initially a Christian--and possibly was up to death, in all honesty, he struggled with it and his theory all his life--but that's a good 150 or so years past, and I'd agree with Hitchens and Dawkins who say that, in all honesty, it IS somewhat incompatible with the creation myth of the Judeo-Christian faiths, and that Apologetics, while admirable in some way, are likely being overly-charitable with their interpretations than what was originally intended in the text, and thus, the hard-line "fanatics" may well be closer to the original intended reading of a text written thousands of years ago, a text I'm happy to say I'm getting through, just finished Exodus--Moses out of Egypt remains a good story, I find, all faith removed, however much of an utter prat God was for "Hardening Pharaoh's Heart" all those times...after that, the book gets pretty damn legalistic and boring, giving far-outdated laws along with the Ten Commandments, and if anyone doubts the Bible was written by man...does anyone seriously think a divine, all-powerful being like God would have dictated to Moses what to do in the event one's ox is lost and injured or killed? Wouldn't God have some far more important things to say...like, say speak out against slavery...or warn against the Babylonians...or Romans...or something else, was legality regarding oxen and maidservants REALLY so important that it needed to be dictated to Moses directly from God? Buy I digress--so onto the dreaded Leviticus.)

2. Much like, finally, in the 1960s, the Church dropped their stance against the Jews on the Crucifixion of Jesus, and much like how, in 1978, the Mormon Church finally allowed blacks to become full members and priests, I see the Church adopting "theistic evolution" as a compromise they've bent to at the behest of public intellectual pressure, knowing that should they denounce evolution as untrue, their credibility (that which they have, not a fan of the Catholic Church as an entity) would likely diminish. If they could, I very much doubt they'd endorse evolution in any form, given the potential for harm it brings to faith-based organizations.

@SD:

"So in obi's world, school shootings like those at Virginia Tech, Columbine, etc etc etc...don't happen? Those are very much the product of the society that develops around many institutions of learning and their ways of marginalizing people, and I think they're much worse than a molestation charge."

No, they happened.

But even if we include those, will you honestly say they can be compared with the Spanish Inquisition or the many Sunni/Shiite wars or the forced conversion of people in Africa and South America or the Crusades...and on...and on...and on...suicide bombings...and on...and on...and on...

I don't marginalize the suffering of the victims for a second.

I merely state that far more religious wars (to just take religious wars as ONE potential harm religion can have) have occurred than school shootings, and so very, very many more have died or had their lives destroyed by such wars, entire countries and continents being destroyed by these wars, that it's absurd to compare the two.

VT was horrible. No one denies it.
Their suffering was immense. No one denies it.

But the sheer numbers of those suffering via religious wars, and the sheer number of religious wars vs. school shootings...

There isn't even a comparison.

What's more, if VT was horrendously painful for those involved (and it undoubtedly was) how much worse must that same level of pain have been when spread amongst MILLIONS involved in a religious war?

How about hundreds of millions in the oh-so-many religious wars?

I do not at all mean to--nor do I believe I do--take away from the suffering of those at Columbine when I say that it was NOT, in fact, the Armenian Genocide.

"No, obitard, once again you epic fucking fail. You are mor elike the brash and impulsive obiwan of Episode 1 than the wise Obiwan of 2-6."

How insulting!

That you'd lump the Ewan McGregor Obiwan from 2-3 and call him "wise" alongside the brilliant Sir Alec Guinness...

Who was wise enough to hate Star Wars far before I began to!

THAT is full of fail, sir.

No doubt little is expected of me and my ramblings, but we'd AT LEAST expect far more from your trolling banalities than to lump the Prequel Obi with the genuine article...for shame, sir, for very-geeky-shame!

OK, well, that was 2 and a half hours straight typing...and quite a wall of text...

I think it's time for a break. :)

"and the feeling of terrible insecurity and guilt that religion can bring about..."


Teachers don't resort to insecurity and guilt. eh?


Um and btw not all Anglican's are british. I live in Georgia.

**British**

You actually did deny it...you said the worst that can happen from education is a molestation charge or two. And one could argue that education played a role in the Tiananmen Square massacre, the Cultural Revolution...it undoubtedly played a role in the Kent State situation...

Anything that can be used for good has also been used for ill.

"In the privacy of your home, you're free to your books and your ideals, and I'm free to mine--so, as much as I dislike religion, I have no problem with adults going to Church when, after all, I go to the theatre...we're both going somewhere for something that we feel fulfills us, and both are privately-owned, so as long as we keep to our separate Houses, as it were, there's no problem"

Yet don't you talk about how much you like Shakespeare in a public forum? Shame on you! You should keep such a private thing private ;-) After all you're only too ready to oppose me when I speak up. That's a horrible analogy Obi. Nobody cares if you go to the theater and it isn't even close to the importance socially that regular church attendance holds for believers. The theater visit is purely for you and the people that you invite to go with you.

The church on the other hand is a community in a way that the audience doesn't even pretend to be. They show up; try not to annoy one another, and leave never to be reassmebled in that configuration again. The thought of an audience member (let alone the actors or director) visiting you when you go to the hospital would be ludicrous, but church members have societies set up to do that for them.

Going to church is simply not showing up for a performance no matter how much you'd like to equate the two.

Now wait a minute. I just re-read this part "In the privacy of your home, you're free to your books and your ideals, and I'm free to mine--"

So, I'm free to my ideals as long as I don't vote on them? Are you going to make the same concession? That you'll abandon your ideals when you enter the voting booth?

Huh, and I thought you were British, CA...

Oh damn, now there's a part of that response of mine that just looks silly (just a part of course, and not the entire dissertation.) ;)

It's the ravings of a mad man. obiwanobiwan, that made no sense at all. Whatever you were trying to say there could definitely have been said in less than three and a half feet of text.

I disagree, Invictus.

If you add them all up, it's closer to six feet. At least at my display settings.

Otherwise, spot on.

"Believing God created the world 4.6 billion years ago, and yet he only created humanity, his prize creature, 10,000 years ago?"

Not quite, instead believing that God initiated a process 12 billion years ago that he guided into producing us right now, along with those who came before and will come after. Like Invictus said, Theistic Evolution is the official stance of the RCC. As a matter of fact there are only three churches in the USA that include YEC as part of their doctrine (the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, the Reformed Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and the Seventh Day Adventist Church). Together these three churches account for less than 20 million of the 100 million Christians in North America. So, there is 20% right there. So an additional 5 million people came to YEC on their own in spite of their church not officially adhering to it, accounts for the 25% of people that reject evolution according to the Gallup poll. I’m pretty sure that the population that embraces YEC comes from the 25% that rejects evolution, rather than the 40% who accept man as a creation appearing 10,000 years ago. Basically 25% reject Evolution and 40% (including that 25%) think that man (more or less as he is now) appeared 10,000 years ago. The additional 15% cannot be said to reject the idea of a 4.6 billion year old earth because they were never asked about the age of the earth. They were asked if they believe that God created man in more or less his present form 10,000 years ago. That question was poorly worded. The fact that only 22% of college educated Christians agreed with that statement (while 47% of those with an education level of high-school or less did) should lead you to the possible assumption that a greater proportion of college educated Christians saw where that question was heading than did those of a lesser educational level. All of which means that the additional 15% that you tout as Young Earth Creationists are probably Theistic Evolutionists that didn’t rightly understand that terribly worded question. If you want to know how many people think the world is 10,000 years old then ask them “How old do you think the world is”. It is that simple.

Now Theistic evolution isn't an oxymoron at all. It is merely saying "Okay there is evolution, that doesn't automatically discount with the idea of God initiating and perhaps even guiding the process". Discounting that as impossible is naturalism not science. Science merely says "Hey this is what we see". It doesn't say anything about God pro or con. As soon as it does it becomes a tool of religion or anti-religion. It was never menat to be either and it's at its best when it is neither.