Is creationism actually on the rise anywhere?

[andy b]

...

So you basically want someone to explain the entirety of how evolutionary biology and genetics works?

You know there are free courses on this stuff:

Bro you asked the question I answerd I didn't expect to be linked to the encyclopedia brBritanni for the answer ....if you can't answer there's no shame bro
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology | Open Yale Courses
Paleontology: Early Vertebrate Evolution | Coursera

If you *really* want to understand how it works, I suggest taking advantage of those.

 

[pitabread]

Bro you asked the question I answerd I didn't expect to be linked to the encyclopedia brBritanni for the answer ....if you can't answer there's no shame bro

You're essentially asking people to explain evolution and genetics to you and you thought this was a simple topic? There is a reason people go to school for over half a decade to become experts in these fields after all.

Look, I know how this works because I've been in these types of debates/discussions for decades now:

1) Creationists post a demand for evidence of evolution.
2) Other people respond with examples.
3) Creationists summarily dismisses anything these are given and declare victory.

This is why I sidestep the whole debate. If you were really serious about learning, there are resources for that. You don't need to come to an internet forum and make demands when the resources are already available to you.

The responses I get to providing things like links to courses or other resources separates those who are serious from the pretenders. Now I know which camp you are in.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Pretenders : those who believe what is false, but claim it is true ? Thus, the whole world !

 

[andy b]

You're essentially asking people to explain evolution and genetics to you and you thought this was a simple topic? There is a reason people go to school for over half a decade to become experts in these fields after all.

Look, I know how this works because I've been in these types of debates/discussions for decades now:

1) Creationists post a demand for evidence of evolution.
2) Other people respond with examples.
3) Creationists summarily dismisses anything these are given and declare victory.

This is why I sidestep the whole debate. If you were really serious about learning, there are resources for that. You don't need to come to an internet forum and make demands when the resources are already available to you.

The responses I get to providing things like links to courses or other resources separates those who are serious from the pretenders. Now I know which camp you are in.

U

I ain't in your camp bro not know not ever

 

[pitabread]

U

I ain't in your camp bro not know not ever

It's about education and acquisition of knowledge. If you don't believe in that then you're right, we're definitely not in the same camp.

 

[andy b]

It's about education and acquisition of knowledge. If you don't believe in that then you're right, we're definitely not in the same camp.

Lol it's knowledge you don't have bro ...somebody asks me something I don't know the answer I say sorry brother I don't know I don't say I do know and then give them the name of abook ......merry Christmas bro may your randomly assembled molecules find happiness

 

[USincognito]

Alright Andy, it seems we need to have a discussion. Can you lower your defenses and chill with the offense and let's just talk. You up for that?

I'm not talking about evolution within species'

There is no magical dividing line between speciation and common ancestry. In fact it is because of speciation that populatons wind up with common ancestors. Also, just because I have a feeling it might be an issue going forward - descendants never stop being what their ancestors were. So apes and Old World Monkeys never stop being Catarrhines. Catarrhines never stop being Simiformes (all apes and monkeys). Simiformes never stop being Primates and never stop being Euarchontoglires, etc. etc.

I'm talking about all that nonsense of fish becoming mammals.....

So here we go. There is a long evolutionary history through terrestrial tetrapods to Synapsids to Therapsids to Mammals to Eutherians that begins with fishopods called Sarcopterygians. All modern mammals are still fish in that they are still Sarcopterygians. Now this doesn't mean that camels swim in water and have gills and scales. I means that all descendants of basal Sarcopterygians share characteristics with all other Sarcopterygians.

We have plenty of evidence from the fossil record and genetics showing this happened.
Discovery reveals evolutionary path from fins to fingers

show me any evidence of one species turning into another ...

You're going to first need to give me a hypothetical example of what you mean by "one species turning into another" We need to clarify that because many Creationists demand to observe something that actually would falsify evolution.

.give me a rational explanation of how life started explain to me how DNA changes ....like the DNA of a reptile becomes the DNA of a human

1. We don't know how life started but however it did does not effect evolution one single bit.
2. DNA changes through mutations. It can be as simple as a single base pair or it can be hundreds of base pairs. Many mutations are some of the best evidence for evolution come from gene, chromosome and even whole genome duplication followed by subsequent mutation.
3. The DNA of a human is not qualitatively different from that of a reptile. Both lines evolved from a basal Amniote population. If one looks at the entirety of the evolutionary history of a monitor lizard and a human, we have much more in common than we don't genetically.

 

[USincognito]

...

So you basically want someone to explain the entirety of how evolutionary biology and genetics works?

You know there are free courses on this stuff:

Introduction to Genetics and Evolution | Coursera
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology | Open Yale Courses
Paleontology: Early Vertebrate Evolution | Coursera

If you *really* want to understand how it works, I suggest taking advantage of those.

I think this is a baby steps before you can walk much less run situation.

 

[pitabread]

Lol it's knowledge you don't have bro ...somebody asks me something I don't know the answer I say sorry brother I don't know I don't say I do know and then give them the name of abook

In this case, it's knowing enough about the subject to know it's not something which readily fits into an internet discussion forum. As well as ample past experience with these types of "asks" on internet forums such as these.

Hence, I simply direct people to educational resources and leave it up to them.

......merry Christmas bro may your randomly assembled molecules find happiness

And Merry Christmas to you as well. May your bilaterally symmetric, bipedal hominid form enjoy the holidays.

 

[pitabread]

I think this is a baby steps before you can walk much less run situation.

Yeah, but we've all seen this before and know exactly how this is going to turn out.

 

[Colter]

Based on what I've been able to research re: polling data, creationism is declining in the U.S., Canada and Australia.

There was some furor a couple years ago about creationism being on the rise in Europe, but I can't find any actual polling or trend information. Plus, creationist presence in most European countries tends to be much smaller compared to countries like the U.S. so even over there a "rise in creationism" may not necessarily indicate a particularly large shift in demographics.

What I would be most interested to see is any demographic information for creationists in Europe. I know in the U.S. and Canada creationists are predominantly the older cohort (e.g. 55+) which explains the continual downward trend in those countries. I would be interested to see if Europe is similar or not.

Creationism in Europe

edited by Stefaan Blancke, Hans Henrik Hjermitslev, and Peter C. Kjærgaard
foreword by Ronald L. Numbers

Creationism in Europe

I would speculate that YEC is on the decline, but any polling about evolution doesn't necessarily relate to the creation of the life that evolved. There is ample evidence that life evolved over millions of years from previous life forms that are now extinct. Educated people would naturally affirm the evolution of life but that doesn't demonstrate what they believe or know about the origins of the life that evolved.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Creationism thrives on ignorance. That's not a sustainable strategy in this day and age.

I'm not so sure that ignorance is an unsustainable strategy - if you have falsehoods to replace knowledge; as the saying goes, “a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes”.

 

[pitabread]

I'm not so sure that ignorance is an unsustainable strategy - if you have falsehoods to replace knowledge; as the saying goes, “a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes”.

When you look at the inverse correlation between creationist beliefs and educational attainment/understanding of evolution, plus the demographics challenges creationists have, that is why I consider it unsustainable.

No doubt there will always be pockets of creationist belief, but it's on a downward slide and I don't see any evidence of that trend reversing.

 

[mark kennedy]

Creationism thrives on ignorance. That's not a sustainable strategy in this day and age. Hence why it's on the decline in the countries I mentioned.

Now do you have anything useful to contribute regarding the OP?

Darwinism thrives on ignorance which is why there is nothing substantive here. I can't count the times the people who were the most viralant couldn't read the source material and didn't bother to try.

 

[mark kennedy]

When you look at the inverse correlation between creationist beliefs and educational attainment/understanding of evolution, plus the demographics challenges creationists have, that is why I consider it unsustainable.

No doubt there will always be pockets of creationist belief, but it's on a downward slide and I don't see any evidence of that trend reversing.

It's not a popularity contest, it's about the truth and you are talking in circles.

 

[pitabread]

It's not a popularity contest, it's about the truth and you are talking in circles.

Indeed it's not a popularity contest. That doesn't change the fact that creationist beliefs are on a decline and based on demographics will continue that way for the foreseeable future.

 

[pitabread]

Darwinism thrives on ignorance

Your own make-shift definition of "Darwinism" isn't relevant to this thread. Take it outside.

 

[mark kennedy]

Indeed it's not a popularity contest. That doesn't change the fact that creationist beliefs are on a decline and based on demographics will continue that way for the foreseeable future.

I watch those statistics to and I'm not impressed with your generalities about them.

 

[mark kennedy]

Your own make-shift definition of "Darwinism" isn't relevant to this thread. Take it outside.

That's the whole point, of course, you don't want a definition for the pedantic generalizations you spew across these threads. You might actually have to defend one of you fallacious attacks.

 

[pitabread]

I watch those statistics to and I'm not impressed with your generalities about them.

What generalities? These are all just basic facts mark.