Do Americans only start learning about evolution in University/College?

it may be those more capable of understanding the difference between science and creationist propaganda are more likely to go to college

possibly... many religious educators have been trying to ban the teaching of evolution from high schools throughout the U.S.
i don't know the numbers but i know it has been removed from the class room in some states.

Apparently, not that much: 37%?

nope. a lot of those polled are older people who graduated college a long time ago though. the number is probably lower for recent college grads.

it does decrease massively for professional scientists. i recall it's about 5% for all scientists and something like 0.14% for those working in related fields (biologists/geologists etc).

FYP.

So the more people educate themselves, the less they believe in creationism? That must just be a coincidence...

I'm quite familiar with those ideas. Now think about this. Suppose in some higher dimension running a simulation of our universe is as easy for the beings who inhabit that dimension as it is for us to run say "Sim City".

There could be countless simulations run by countless beings who in effect are gods. Couldn't one of those beings running a simulation act like the God of the bible simply because that is what tickles his fancy?

correlation doesn't prove causation.

in the case of scientists working in related fields it kinda does.

unless you're a conspiracy theorist.

Not always. But how does it go, if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck...

WINNER!!!

Could, could, could....Yes, a lot of stuff could happen. And because there will never be a definite answer, we could go on listing all the stuff that could be true forever.

When it comes to our creation, we have a question that no one knows the answer to. What is the best way to go about solving this: A) Gather evidence and formulate theories or B) Submit to an answer made thousands of years ago by people with relatively no education.

The first ever religions were based on astrology. These religions branched off over the years and characters were put in plays to personalize the movement of the stars. Things come full circle, as once again, we are studying the stars searching for answers. Science is the modern religion. Your need to believe that there is a God comes from you, internally, not external evidence.

To OP: If you only knew how much you are embarrassing yourself ITT, you'd have stopped after your first few posts.

To others: Why are you engaging this person in discussion pertaining to facts and logic when you have <.000000001% of getting anywhere? It's worse than a waste of time. OP is obviously content with blissfully wallowing in his ignorance. The more educational facts you throw at him, the more entrenched he'll become.

place, not plays. Couldn't edit for some reason...

The point I was making is that if you accept simulation hypothesis as being plausible(i.e. were living in a computer simulation) then the Abrahamic God becomes plausible as well.

To Lestat: You will never win or change anyones mind during a debate like this. It is more of a pissing match at the moment. The victory happens latter in the solitary moments of self reflection that everyone experiences.

I'd agree with the "comes from you, internally," if what you mean is subjective versus objective experience. If you think about it, it's the personal subjective experience that's the cornerstone of religions, not external evidence. Jesus, Buddha, Moses, Mohammed, the Hindu sages all claimed to have seen certain truths like God, or experienced certain things like the soul, etc., and then went on to preach what they directly and subjectively experienced. The objective 'facts of the case' have almost no relevance to the core of religion, because most religions claim and most of them teach that what is to be known is not something we experience objectively but a personal subjective experience.

Sure, you can doubt anything - maybe the speed of light changes just outside our solar system. I didn't say we know though, I said it seems like that.

Do you have any reference to back up a 'there was no beginning to time' position? Hawking's position seems closest, but even there there was a historical boundary, even if not precisely defined.

Irrespective, if you accept my distinction you must now be forced to accept that time had no beginning (with whatever 'arrow of time' gymnastics you want to implement). Presumably you will reject the necessity of time for intelligence to exist?

I don't feel particularly attached to this claim (I'm not even sure if I believe it). I'm just arguing with Stu Pidasso for practise really, since I didn't think anyone would take him up on the invitation.

My defence to the above would be that anything we would properly call intelligent must be able to process information - the meaning of process requires time (as any process involves a change from one state to another). If there is no time, no processes can exist. If no processes can exist, nothing can process information. If nothing can process information, nothing can be called intelligent.

I don't know that intelligence requires time. I was stumped by that question. My inclination at the moment is to think that in order for reality to exist, dimensions or something akin to them must exist. My inclination at this moment is that all that is required for intellect is reality...not necessarily a temporal dimension.

If all that existed was nothingness and some laws of physics laws that allowed the big bang....where do those physical laws exist? For human made laws the answer is easy, our laws exist in the constructs of our minds...but in what construct do the rules which govern our reality exist?

what happened before the big bang - BBC Horizon

This seems to imply that you believe something could be intelligent and yet unable to process information. In fact, an eternal intelligence would be unchanging in every respect which (to my mind) precludes intelligence.
I think your question is flawed - if there are no dimensions, there is no concept of 'where'. I don't think that a location is necessary for existence - just for physical existence which is not a relevant concept if reality were to be dimensionless. If you're going to declare the situation impossible because you can't answer a where question, why not declare it impossible because you can't answer "what colour are they?"
There are many easy answers but that doesn't make them right. I don't think Newtonian physics exists 'in our minds' I think it has no spatio-temporal location - the things you are referring to are (I maintain) representations of abstract objects, not the actual objects themselves.

If someone new learns Newtonian physics has it just got bigger? Has it moved? If we all forget it is it no longer a simple but mildly inaccurate model of macroscopic events?

No...it implies that I am stumped concerning the question "Is time necessary for intelligence" and that I am inclined to believe that it is not. I've still got a lot of thinking to do and could easily go the other way.

I think to even adequately answer the question we first have to understand what time is. Current thinking is that time is another dimension of space and not so much a change in states. That moving from one state to another doesn't cause the previous state not exist. Imagine your existence as a movie, as one frame comes into view the previous frame doesn't cease to exist, and future frames already do exist.

Humans are only capable of veiwing the existence movie one frame at a time. We call the veiwing of one frame after the other in a sequential order the passage of time. Why couldn't a sufficiently capable being veiw 2 frames at a time? Or 10 or a billion frames at a time? Or as in the case of God all the frames at the same time? As long as that being is making sense of what they are veiwing that being can said to be intelligent.

I think what I am trying to say when I answer your question that time might not be a requirement for intelligence , I really mean that intelligence needs the film(reality) but it doesn't necessarily need to veiw it one frame after another in sequential order to make sense of it(i.e. the passage of time).

Spacetime is the repository of all that is physical but you and I know that there is more to reality than just the physical. Reality includes other things which are non physical like...well...the laws of physics.

I think you will concede that the universe was here long before you or any other human being was around to think about it and forumulate abstract ideas about its goings on. My question to you is if the laws of physics are not a physical objects in spacetime and not a constructs of a mind, then what were they?

If the laws of physics are constructs of a mind, doesn't that necessitate a mind behind the existence of the universe?

Yeah, sure - I didn't mean you'd made up your mind. More that if you think it's possible for an 'eternal intelligence' to exist then you must also think something could be intelligent without being able to process information.
I agree with this - I'm not speaking experientially. I mean that, without the film having different frames then there is no change - there's just a snapshot and that's reality (even a mental picture of only one frame is wrong, since it implies a present).
I'm arguing that the word intelligence implies an ability to process information - to proceed from one state to another. This implies an existence in at least two separate frames of some metaphorical film. A being which viewed time all-at-once as you're suggesting can't really be said to be intelligent on this view, as it isn't processing any information, changing or experiencing anything. Without time, there's no experience at all really - even the premise is poorly formed as it implies a present (which is not an a-temporal entity).