Majority of Americans don't believe evolution

Genesis is not science, Genesis is a tale that was handed down for generations by people who really knew nothing about science, who knew nothing about natural history, and certainly knew nothing about what fossils were.

The unspoken taboo on evolution is not just a tragedy of missed educational opportunities. Our health and economy increasingly depend on biomedical research, from the epidemiology of bird flu to the treatment of AIDS, which depends on understanding evolution. Asian countries, which lack America's squeamishness about evolution, are hell-bent on expanding their biomedical research sector. If we don't overcome our reluctance to excite our children with modern biological thought, it doesn't take a Darwin to predict who will be selected in this struggle for survival.

On August 15 2006 17:39 aseq wrote:
I'm in favor of teaching creationism in schools too (flame me), but alongside evolution. To me, neither are proven, evolution is still a theory, as is creationism, so let's learn kids all there is to know and let them make their own decision.

On August 15 2006 17:39 aseq wrote:
Hot77.iEy: I'm not a christian, nor am i certain of either evolution or creation, but i do believe that a single flood COULD / MAY have created the grand canyon (this flood + the aftereffects of the erosion, formed rivers, winds etc. ).

On August 15 2006 17:41 jkillashark wrote:
Well America IS a nation with Christian roots, you friggin pagans.

On August 15 2006 17:39 aseq wrote:I'm in favor of teaching creationism in schools too (flame me), but alongside evolution.

On August 15 2006 17:58 QuietIdiot wrote:
Similiar to the Galapagos Islands theories? :o

On August 15 2006 17:39 aseq wrote:
Hot77.iEy: I'm not a christian, nor am i certain of either evolution or creation, but i do believe that a single flood COULD / MAY have created the grand canyon (this flood + the aftereffects of the erosion, formed rivers, winds etc. ). When you look at it from the evolution point of view, the grand canyon wasn't formed during or shortly after the big bang, so there must have been some forces involved after that (like a giant earthquake, a meteorite hit (possibly resulting in a massive flood) or stuff like that). It's not all that unthinkable imo.

I read a theoretical book about this supposed flood once, which was inspiring and a great read (but in dutch). I'm in favor of teaching creationism in schools too (flame me), but alongside evolution. To me, neither are proven, evolution is still a theory, as is creationism, so let's learn kids all there is to know and let them make their own decision.

On August 15 2006 17:54 Jathin wrote:
The problem with teaching creationism in schools is how you present it.

Do you present it from a Christian standpoint?
A Buddhist standpoint?
How about Hindu?

On August 15 2006 17:54 Jathin wrote:
The problem with teaching creationism in schools is how you present it.

Do you present it from a Christian standpoint?
A Buddhist standpoint?
How about Hindu?

It's very difficult to approach it because each religion has its own explanation for how humans came about. Evolution, on the other hand, is a theory that's very consistent and has ample evidence to support it. Creationism isn't science, evolution is. There is data supporting evolution. We have witnessed descent with modification with our very own eyes (in the 80's-90's there is decades of data on bird beak length increasing throughout generations to adapt to the strain of harder-to-obtain food)

And if science threatens your faith, perhaps you ought to re-examine your beliefs. Science and religion don't have to be mutually exclusive things. It's really just a handful of overly-dogmatic religious sects (read: fundies) that need science to be wrong on evolution (and a number of other things, for that matter), in order for their religious beliefs to be right.

Devil's advocate.

Your average non-scientist citizen is not likely to go and check all the sources to verify that, yes indeed, evolution is the most likely explanation for the diversity of species. So, to demand that this average citizen believe in evolution is to demand the same leap of faith as for that citizen to believe in creation. Either way, some "expert" is telling this citizen what to think about something s/he doesn't understand.

Why don't these polls include an "I don't know, I don't have time to check the facts, and it really doesn't matter in my everyday life" option? I think that would be the best response for a thinking non-scientist.

It's sad that most Christians base their faith on The Bible and not the teachings of Christ. This is the same problem Fundamentalist Muslims are suffering from...they confuse the Qur'an(and subsequent mistranslations and commentaries) with the spiritual message of Mohammed. Both Mohammed and Jesus promoted love, tolerance, forgiveness, and understanding. None of which is in conflict with science(the pursuit of truth).

If the direct teachings of these prophets were the focus of religious organizations(instead of using scriptures to control their followers through fear), science would be embraced by the world religions rather than shunned by it.

i don't think so whatsoever. the good thing about science is it systematically corrects itself via peer review when contrary evidence arrives--even if "correction" means scrapping the whole thing. That's what WORKS about science.

that said, when the entire fossil record we have supports evolution and predictions are made and proven true, I don't think I need to worry about semantics. It's fact.

Some predictions made based on evolution:

• Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
  Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
  
• Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
  
• Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
  
• Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
  
• Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
  
• Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

The problem lies not with the people, as Americans are as smart as anyone else, but with the educational system. In the US, only those that get to college are taught to ask questions and challenge any preconceived notions that they have. Even then, not all colleges to an adequate job of it.

Thus, the majority of the population that has a high school education at best has never been taught to change their minds. Instead, they are taught to learn material and repeat it. When what they are taught (at church, or on the TV/radio) that the world is 6000 years old, that global warming is a liberal hoax, or that we were divine creations dropped into the Garden of Eden, that's what they repeat. They were never told that they could question what they hear, nor that they should.

You want to fix this problem? Be willing to pay higher property taxes, attend school board meetings, and push for changes to the curriculum that encourage curiosity and questioning... Then maintain the effort for a generation so that the kids who start with the program in kindergarden can progress through the system and go into politics.

And you can blame it on modern schools... the problem is the definition of "modern". Schools have been focused on churning out industrial workers (factory-workers, etc.) for the last century. That's the "modern" model. Now that we're largely post-industrial, we notice the need for people who can reason and think, as opposed to people who only had to read, write, and do basic arithmetic. We need to take a long, hard look at what the current school curricula are designed to teach, and work from the ground up. Moreover, the more recent fixation on testing to academic standards only exacerbates the problem; we're telling schools that so long as kids can regurgitate information, they're okay.

On August 15 2006 18:09 gameguard wrote:
there is plenty of measurable data supporting evolution. However, there is also areas that are kind of grey.

think about the very beginning of life. The general concensus is that lightning in the pre-oxygenated atmosphre caused the formation of simple molecules like ammonia. Simple molecules aggregate to form more complex molecules such as RNA. Lipids and such form globules that have an internal invironment. RNA is incorporated and voala - the primitive cell is born.

There has been experiments to prove some of these could happen, but its hard to say that all of these processes came together to form the cell. Now if there was some supernatural guidance.....

On August 15 2006 18:12 VietBitter wrote:
To say you don't believe in Humans came about as the result of evolution and to say you don't believe in evolution is two different things. Although evolution is a theory, but come on theres ample evidence for evolution to be true, whereas creationism requires faith, tell me which one is logically more correct.

On August 15 2006 18:07 Mynock wrote:

However, we've gotta be honest. There is 0 data of a species evolving into another species. No data. No proof.

That is the main reason evolution theory is still just a theory.

On August 15 2006 17:22 gameguard wrote:
I dont understand how anyone with a reasonable amount of education can look past the overwhelming evidence for evolution and say its false.

On August 15 2006 18:07 Mynock wrote:


However, we've gotta be honest. There is 0 data of a species evolving into another species. No data. No proof. That is the main reason evolution theory is still just a theory.

Now it could "easily" be proven otherwise if only we could observe the rainforests' abundant wildlife a bit closer. New species emerge on a daily basis in there, but it's virtually impossible to actually catch one changing into other due to the sheer amount of population of one species. Also, when do you consider a species evolved into another? So it's really not that "easily" proven...

Oh, still better than creation tho.

-Mynock

On August 15 2006 18:07 Mynock wrote:
However, we've gotta be honest. There is 0 data of a species evolving into another species. No data. No proof. That is the main reason evolution theory is still just a theory.

On August 15 2006 18:11 oneofthem wrote:
so what, people believe in what they want to believe

On August 15 2006 18:22 Bill307 wrote:


They can also vote.

On August 15 2006 18:18 Mindcrime wrote:


Again, I would like to point out the nylon-eating bacteria. While it may not be enough to qualify is a totally different species, that sure is a hell of a change.




I really wish people would quit saying that. Gravity is also "just a theory."

On August 15 2006 18:07 Mynock wrote:
Now it could "easily" be proven otherwise if only we could observe the rainforests' abundant wildlife a bit closer. New species emerge on a daily basis in there, but it's virtually impossible to actually catch one changing into other due to the sheer amount of population of one species.

On August 15 2006 18:24 Mynock wrote:

Well yes it is. It has even been modified several times ever since Brahmagupta (Newton, Einstein)... It's not exact yet. It's just way good enough.

-Mynock

On August 15 2006 18:24 oneofthem wrote:
and your point is?

On August 15 2006 18:29 Mindcrime wrote:
As is Evolution.

On August 15 2006 17:22 gameguard wrote:
I dont understand how anyone with a reasonable amount of education can look past the overwhelming evidence for evolution and say its false. Most of these people will blindly stick to their faith. Can they not see that creationism and evolution doesnt neccesarily have to contradict each other? Reading the Scriptures in the very literal sense, you can run into some trouble. You should apply modern knowledge and logical thinking when you interpret some of the things writen in the scriptures. Keep in mind the Bible was writen a long time ago.

Many people take the "God created earth in 7 days" literally which can only lead to denying the evolutionary process. It is unknown how Genesis was writen or even who wrote it. Whos to say it wasnt a vision given to the author by God in the form of symbols. This is personally what I believe but there can be other explanations if you keep an open mind.

Basically I agree with micronesia and believe that God guided the evolutionary process.

On August 15 2006 18:32 Mynock wrote:


I know it is, I just said that before. What's your point again?

-Mynock

On August 15 2006 17:22 gameguard wrote:

Basically I agree with micronesia and believe that God guided the evolutionary process.

On August 15 2006 18:31 Bill307 wrote:


Example: Joe does not believe in evolution. Of the two candidates running for presidency, the better one believes in evolution. Therefore Joe does not vote for him/her.

By the way, are you implying that it is OK for people to believe whatever they want, and that it will have no effect on you or anyone else?

On August 15 2006 18:28 Mynock wrote:
This has yet to happen tho, and until it does, the creationists won't shut up. No matter the logic, no matter the conclusions, these things are yet to be proven.

On August 15 2006 18:36 Mindcrime wrote:
I don't recall reading that.

On August 15 2006 18:36 warding wrote:

Seriously? Do you really understand the concept of evolution? And you still think it needs some sort of illuminated guidance? :|

On August 15 2006 18:30 IntoTheWow wrote:
Until you find something that explains the world better than the current physics, ill stick with them.

Thank you.

On August 15 2006 18:36 warding wrote:

Seriously? Do you really understand the concept of evolution? And you still think it needs some sort of illuminated guidance? :|

On August 15 2006 18:09 gameguard wrote:
there is plenty of measurable data supporting evolution. However, there is also areas that are kind of grey.

think about the very beginning of life. The general concensus is that lightning in the pre-oxygenated atmosphre caused the formation of simple molecules like ammonia. Simple molecules aggregate to form more complex molecules such as RNA. Lipids and such form globules that have an internal invironment. RNA is incorporated and voala - the primitive cell is born.

There has been experiments to prove some of these could happen, but its hard to say that all of these processes came together to form the cell. Now if there was some supernatural guidance.....

On August 15 2006 18:40 Mynock wrote:


Then re-read my posts and unless you're looking for the exact same wording you surely will.

All I was saying is that there is no definitive 100% proof for evolution. There's just a mountain of evidence and logical conclusions. But evolution theory is still just a theory. Believing otherwise is almost as ignorant as believing it's completely false.

-Mynock

On August 15 2006 18:36 warding wrote:

Seriously? Do you really understand the concept of evolution? And you still think it needs some sort of illuminated guidance? :|

On August 15 2006 18:49 Bill307 wrote:
Considering how evolution took place over an inconceivably and unimaginably long period of time, I don't see anything wrong with believing that evolution was not totally random and was somehow influenced by God. The period of time is just so long that no one can say, qualitatively, whether or not it is long enough to allow evolution to progress from the first life on earth to what we see today.

On August 15 2006 18:54 Mindcrime wrote:


Evolution is not random. Mutations themselves may be somewhat random, but natural selection ensures that evolution is not.

On August 15 2006 18:40 Chill wrote:
I feel so bad for science in general. It's like you work so hard to prove this to the masses and they just "know" you're wrong.

I was watching a commercial for the Q-Ray braclet, with it's "ionized metal" powers it makes you feel better. It's got to make everyone who makes their living in theoretical sciences sick to see someone getting rich off this, and the people putting it on and "feeling better within seconds".

I'm also annoyed with the people who don't want genetically engineered crops because it's "immoral", while people in other countries with large population densities or infertile soils continue to starve every day. That's another tangent though...

If you believe in anything other than science, for anything in the universe, go fuck yourself. That's straight from me to you. You can't refute theories and evidence with gut feeling.

On August 15 2006 19:41 CaucasianAsian wrote:
In America, the minority that is ridiculed the most are not the Jewish population, the mexican/spanish, the asians, nor is it the blacks. The minority in the United States, are in fact, Athiests/Agnostics. I believe because since the United States was created behind the simple belief of Freedom of Catholic church. The Freedom of Religion, of course outlines that you can believe in any religion, or none if desired. Nonetheless, Americans are stupid in many ways, and/or blinded from the truths. However, if you come to America, you will find a church, synagogue, temple, mosque, or any other superior personel praising location, in everything. You will see religion on our money, on our roads, on our billboards, on the radio, in our homes, everywhere. If you know it or not.

I am myself an Athiest. I am not here to judge or say what is right, and what is wrong. I understand why Americans, and other people around the world want to believe that there is an afterlife. People have been praising a holy power forever. The Ancient Egyptians believed in a sun god, the Ancient Greeks and the Ancient Romans believed in individual gods of seperate powers. The Native Americans believed in holy powers and having trust and love in their land. If people were so engulfed in their own belief back in those days, where if someone spoke out and said that it was blantly a bunch of bogus, they themselves would be sent to death. So, if people belived so deeply about their religion, and people now-adays just discredit their beliefs. Why not in the next thousand years, will people not say the same thing of Christianity, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or Judiasm?

Of course the average Christian, will take into place that Christianity has been around for nearly forever, or he would say why am I not taking credit of the truth of the Bible, where in the revelations, all of the visions have come true, such as land of Jerusalim will be back in the hands of the jews (Israel). Or how the third temple is being built (Israel re-building the 3rd sacrificing temples). Or how the amount of non-believers are starting to believe in Christ as their savior (grown increasingly amount).

Well, I obviously can not say that it was all great guesses. There of course every-day clairvoyances, and people who study the future. These people of course can of course prove to others events in the future that will happen. Such as deja vu (very small scale clairvoyance) except for where these people train all day clairvoyance, in their free time. However, two thousand years ago, and way before that. People were not stressed out in their populations, and devoted their lives to supernatural abilities.

You may now start to say that people can not train to have inhumane powers, such as seeing the future. I now say to you that you are wrong. India's population usually have a decoration on their head, called a bindi (red dot on forehead). The bindi actually symbolizes a third-eye where they were able to create enlightment. If millions upon millions of people believed in this, is it safe to say that it is possible that they had some ability, or they belief would of dissapaited just as quickly as it had come, and Hindus would no longer wear the Bindi.

No where in the Bible does it talk about the third-eye. Not once. Instead, the Bible says that there are no alternate abilities, such as alternating your surrounding. But if the Hindu's, and the Chinese who believed in the Chi, had practiced this for so long, and there are still today people who practice clairvoyances, study of Psi Energy, and Psychokinesis (PK) I myself believe in the ability of PK, and Clairvoyances, as I have had lost an object, and asked a student of Remote Viewing, where it was, and they gave it to me with almost exact precision, where we had no future contact, and were complete strangers.

+ Show Spoiler +

So to sum it up, it is impossible to say whether there is or there is not a God. There is no fool proof evidence of him, nor is there evidence to say there is not. However, there is evidence for both sides to merely suggest their side of the story is correct.

Sorry for being so long~

On August 15 2006 20:02 CaucasianAsian wrote:
So after I show to you practically my side of what I believe, you come in and say that I'm an idiot? Well i think your an "idiot" for believing in a holy power. What now?

You even proved my point saying that Athiests/Agnostics were the most ridiculed minority in america.

Edit: I never said praying works, I never said Chi, or PK works, it's just a belief. If you don't believe then so be it. There is no reason to be BM about it.

No where in the Bible does it talk about the third-eye. Not once. Instead, the Bible says that there are no alternate abilities, such as alternating your surrounding. But if the Hindu's, and the Chinese who believed in the Chi, had practiced this for so long, and there are still today people who practice clairvoyances, study of Psi Energy, and Psychokinesis (PK) I myself believe in the ability of PK, and Clairvoyances, as I have had lost an object, and asked a student of Remote Viewing, where it was, and they gave it to me with almost exact precision, where we had no future contact, and were complete strangers.

On August 15 2006 20:08 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Eh, I'm agnostic/atheist. I don't personally believe in any holy powers, gigantic spaggethi monsters or hollow earths, however I acknowledge the possibility that I am wrong, that perhaps there is some creating force or what have you.

On August 15 2006 20:27 Haemonculus wrote:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-143292750174818734&q=fainting goats

Proof that evolution is a lie, kthx bai.

Also my sig is fairly accurate for this thread.

On August 15 2006 17:39 aseq wrote:
Hot77.iEy: I'm not a christian, nor am i certain of either evolution or creation, but i do believe that a single flood COULD / MAY have created the grand canyon (this flood + the aftereffects of the erosion, formed rivers, winds etc. ). When you look at it from the evolution point of view, the grand canyon wasn't formed during or shortly after the big bang, so there must have been some forces involved after that (like a giant earthquake, a meteorite hit (possibly resulting in a massive flood) or stuff like that). It's not all that unthinkable imo.

I read a theoretical book about this supposed flood once, which was inspiring and a great read (but in dutch). I'm in favor of teaching creationism in schools too (flame me), but alongside evolution. To me, neither are proven, evolution is still a theory, as is creationism, so let's learn kids all there is to know and let them make their own decision.

Problem here mostly is that many amerakins do believe what they're taught and this depends highly on their location. I don't like zealous regilious ppl either, but i got no problem with someone who has looked at this from different points of view and has decided that creation is true. As long as he doesn't go try to convince everyone else (waving his holy book) its fine by me.

On August 15 2006 17:41 jkillashark wrote:
Well America IS a nation with Christian roots, you friggin pagans.

On August 15 2006 17:47 ApollyoN wrote:
Well you dont really 'believe' in evolution. Thats like saying you dont 'believe' in gravity.

On August 15 2006 18:07 Mynock wrote:


However, we've gotta be honest. There is 0 data of a species evolving into another species. No data. No proof. That is the main reason evolution theory is still just a theory.

Now it could "easily" be proven otherwise if only we could observe the rainforests' abundant wildlife a bit closer. New species emerge on a daily basis in there, but it's virtually impossible to actually catch one changing into other due to the sheer amount of population of one species. Also, when do you consider a species evolved into another? So it's really not that "easily" proven...

Oh, still better than creation tho.

-Mynock

On August 15 2006 18:18 Mindcrime wrote:

I really wish people would quit saying that. Gravity is also "just a theory."

We have never seen one species mutate into another. The theory of evolution is derived from an extrapolation of observable data. This is the basis of doubt (for those who doubt). Let's be reasonable without the false analogies, please. You wouldn't want to lower yourself to the ignorant, despicable, idiotic, motherfucking american christians, would you?

On August 15 2006 21:05 warding wrote:

There is very convincing evidence of the evolution of a species into another. There is also the easily observable evolution of viruses and bacteria. What more evidence is really needed?

On August 15 2006 21:01 HeadBangaa wrote:
Yes, gravity is a theory. But gravitational forces are directly observable, theorized with great accuracy by equations you learned in high school (hats off to Newton).

We have never seen one species mutate into another. The theory of evolution is derived from an extrapolation of observable data. This is the basis of doubt (for those who doubt). Let's be reasonable without the false analogies, please. You wouldn't want to lower yourself to the ignorant, despicable, idiotic, motherfucking american christians, would you?

On August 15 2006 21:05 warding wrote:

There is very convincing evidence of the evolution of a species into another through the analysis of DNA and by merely looking at skeletons and fossils. There is also the easily observable evolution of viruses and bacteria. What more evidence is really needed?

On August 15 2006 19:09 gameguard wrote:
well i guess the example i gave is not really evolution (it just deals with origin of life). What im trying to say is what started the whole thing? It is easy to look back and study how thing work. But can we know how or why the current system was favored? Was it all totally random? How did we end up with the genetic code that is the basis for all the diversity?

can you imagine what the world would be like if, at the beginning, some other form of molecular infrastructure took precedence? Perhaps it would be equally viable. Or maybe we would be zergs. Who knows.

Think of how many random events had to happen in succession to get to where were at right now.

Im not denying the scope of the universe. Sure, Earth could just be one of the billions of stars with habitable conditions that just happend to go through all the right turns in the random series of events, but I just believe God had something to do with it :0

On August 15 2006 20:41 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:

Well you see the problem with teaching creationism is....FOSSILS. Ok, theory destroyed; stop teaching it. If you knew anything about the subject of modern biology and anthropology then you would never have posted this. Remember the Avian bird flu? Maybe not, but in the United States there was a big deal made about it possibly becomming a strain that would infect humans and the question was whether or not we were prepared for it. However, if evolution didn't exist (ITS JUST A THEORY!!!) there would be no need for concern. It's impossible for diseases to evolve into new diseases right? Please Sir, don't ever compare evolution to creationism as equal theories. That's like comparing the theory of relativity to that of Scientologists (Aliens "planted" life on earth long ago). The fact is evolution is NOT a theory anymore. Biologists have witnessed bacteria evolve in a labortory study many times. The only aspect of it that is a theory is whether or not evolution is the source of life on this planet.

Side note: It is a fact that the Grand Canyon was carved of millions of years by the now named Colorado River. If you want to argue that the source of the Colorado river is a flood than be my guest. It could just as easily be argued to be rain.

I'm sorry sir but you are a moron, have a good day

On August 15 2006 21:17 whatever wrote:

It appears to be random, its all about molecular thermodynamics and such

On August 15 2006 21:26 warding wrote:
Mynorck, notice I said "convincing evidence".

And it's virii btw.

If Christians had succeeded in what they fought for, the world right now would be flat

apparently rock, hip hop, and their prerequisite music are not allowed because drums used to be thought up of as instruments of the devil.

On August 15 2006 22:05 gameguard wrote:
Evolution as a whole can be seen as being pretty random.
Natural selection (which is indeed determined by probabilities) is just a part of evolution...

On August 15 2006 22:10 MoltkeWarding wrote:


Warding is silly. The above evidence convinced me.

How can evidence be convincing when according to this thread half of the US is unconvinced?

On August 16 2006 10:13 doedrikthe2nd wrote:
you also have a president that won't allow stem cell research.

On August 16 2006 10:53 naventus wrote:

Science DOES contradicts religion.

On August 16 2006 11:31 naventus wrote:
Like what? Buddhism and its sects (Zen etc.)?

On August 15 2006 16:41 CTStalker wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/science/sciencespecial2/15evo.html

Of the percentage that don't believe in evolution, the article doesn't expound upon how many (out of those polled) believe in FSM, but I bet it's a lot. You guys sure are nuts.

I can't get enough of this photoshop:

On August 16 2006 06:07 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Hm, just wanted to say to CaucasianAsian that I'm sorry for calling you an idiot like that, really it was stupid of me, completely unprovoked too. So, I'm sorry.

And Moltke, are you saying that the US isn't more christian than western european nations like England, Germany, Holland, France, Spain (kinda religious country :D), Italy (kinda religious again :D)?

Maybe it's just from living in sweden (I've never met a person in my entire life who I knew to be religious) that I've gotten this impression that 'over here' we don't care much for religion.