In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheTrueCentrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
St_Francis said:
I went to a potter’s shop where there were cups, bowls, plates, etc.

All were made of the same material, yet each was created individually.

The fact that all living beings share DNA does not prove evolution.
Click to expand...
Sorry, St Francis, clay is not passed on by descent. DNA is. Your response is simply not a response.
 
St_Francis said:
I was a well-educated (BA) secular person who had watched a public tv show which showed the complexity of a fly’s eye.

The next day, I realized how incredibly absurd materialist evolution was and began to believe in God.
Click to expand...
I understand that this seem obvious to you, but it does not seem in the least obvious to me. Eyes have evolved more than once. The evolutionary processes are well understood. From memory, vertebrates, insects and shellfish like scallops and squid all have different eye lineages. It is perfectly aligned with observed reality to hypothesize that there is a god, or gods, or anything you choose behind evolution. The problem is that the hypothesis cannot be tested in any way.
 
Hokomai said:
Seriously Rob, you need an actual explanation for the fact that all living things share DNA and other genetic material, and such material is passed on only by descent. This means it is a fact that species evolved one from the other, and that apparently complex structures, like eyes, evolved.
Click to expand...
The presence of amazingly long and complex (but identical) codon sequences of “junk DNA” shared between different species of primates is the basis for what’s called the “plagiarized errors” proof of evolutionary descent. The sharing of these identical sequences between species can’t be coincidental—that strains credulity far too much.

And before anyone says that “junk DNA” doesn’t exist, it’s a fact that junk DNA sequences have been excised from embryonic lab rat’s initial cells, the cells implanted in mother rats’ uteruses, the embryos carried to term and birthed, the young grown up and exhibited themselves to be perfectly healthy and ordinary rats. Obviously, they didn’t need these sequences—hence the term “junk DNA.”
 
RACJ said:
I believe that the Pope took the easy way out on this issue, possibly for fear of criticism, perhaps b/c he has little understanding of the issues involved. There is NO evidence that paramecia-type organisms have ever developed, through descent (ascent?) into beetles, spiders, birds, giraffes, whales, humans. In fact, acceptance of the theory of macro-evolution has caused caused countless Christians to lose their faith needlessly. People have come to believe that if we are only animals, we need only consider our carnal drives. We as Christians must stand for Truth. :sad_yes: Rob
P.S. I am NOT a young-earth creationist.
Click to expand...
I apologize in advance if what I’m about to say might hurt your feelings. However, I think the whole ‘spectrum’ from Young Earth Creationist to Intelligent Design then straight to Evolutionist is a complete farce.

Look, it’s either you’re willing to give credit to the scientists for trying to figure out how life developed on earth or you believe a fairy tale where all life just magically popped out, followed by a belief in monsters and other mythical creatures.

Anything else that questions the truth of the fairy tale is an instant slippery slope to science and evolution. It’s either you’re literal with the Bible or you’re not. Thankfully, the Church is wise enough to opt for the latter and tries to educate us in discerning fact from fiction.
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
Look, it’s either you’re willing to give credit to the scientists for trying to figure out how life developed on earth or you believe a fairy tale where all life just magically popped out, followed by a belief in monsters and other mythical creatures.
Click to expand...
The scientists are mostly engaging in story telling. The science involved is not falsifiable and not at all like the science of if I mix chemical a and chemical b then c results. You can’t test the assertions in a meaningful way to have knowledge with any great certainty.

The scientists ultimately still have to say that life just magically popped out because they cannot create life. Until they can do that they have not solved the first step of the process. So why would I care much about the speculations of steps 2-1,000,000,000?
colmywaykurtz said:
The presence of amazingly long and complex (but identical) codon sequences of “junk DNA” shared between different species of primates is the basis for what’s called the “plagiarized errors” proof of evolutionary descent. The sharing of these identical sequences between species can’t be coincidental—that strains credulity far too much.

And before anyone says that “junk DNA” doesn’t exist, it’s a fact that junk DNA sequences have been excised from embryonic lab rat’s initial cells, the cells implanted in mother rats’ uteruses, the embryos carried to term and birthed, the young grown up and exhibited themselves to be perfectly healthy and ordinary rats. Obviously, they didn’t need these sequences—hence the term “junk DNA.”
Click to expand...
I’m no DNA expert. But it seems to me they have only proven that they do not know what the DNA does or it does nothing. But they don’t really know which it is. They can only prove that according to whatever standard for healthy and ordinary they have no difference is observed between the rats who have it removed and those in whom it remains. A simple study of medical history will tell you that in the past scientists have assured us that whole organs have no purpose. They were wrong.
Hokomai said:
It is perfectly aligned with observed reality to hypothesize that there is a god, or gods, or anything you choose behind evolution. The problem is that the hypothesis cannot be tested in any way.
Click to expand...
The hypothesis of evolution can not be tested in any way either. As soon as they can make a species evolve, by adding new information to the species, then the theory has at least some plausibility. The issue I have is that this type of science is speculative. When it is reproduceable in a lab then I’ll have some interest in it.
Hokomai said:
Darn! You have worked it out! The international multi-generational conspiracy extending to virtually every scientist in the world to dismantle civilized mores!
Click to expand...
It is no so much a conspiracy as it is the old story of The Emperor’s New Clothes. Folks tend to agree with other people to not seem odd or crazy. People who don’t believe the scientific story of man are ridiculed as ignorant hicks. From a Christian perspective we know that man has within him the desire to deny God to alleviate his duty to his Creator and set himself up as god. But for me reading statements from supposedly brilliant men like Stephen Hawking (who says philosophy is dead and that the universe can create itself out of nothing, which he defines as not nothing but a vaccuum) tells me that some of these scientists are not so smart as they and those who follow them think. In fact based on these statements Professor Hawking sounds rather dense.
 
didymus said:
If you look there was a six-point drop from “evolved with God guiding” (a crude formulation but but the box I’d check) corresponding to a six-point rise in “God created humans in present form”.

I suspect the results not a shift in scientific belief but the extent to which creationism is a badge (or an identity marker as Jimmy Akin puts it) of conservatism for some people. It might not normally be a big issue for them but feeling themselves under attack.
Click to expand...
Can you support your assertion in any way? All the Creationist information I’ve read contains vague up to credible evidence as to the true age of man.

Peace,
Ed
 
Hokomai said:
Darn! You have worked it out! The international multi-generational conspiracy extending to virtually every scientist in the world to dismantle civilized mores! Now we will have to find another way to do it.

Seriously Rob, you need an actual explanation for the fact that all living things share DNA and other genetic material, and such material is passed on only by descent. This means it is a fact that species evolved one from the other, and that apparently complex structures, like eyes, evolved. Please consider actually reading some of the science. Darwin himself remains fascinating even at this remove - otherwise try Steven J Gould.
Click to expand...
Code: 
I've read that our brains can fire a million billion synapses per SECOND. A hummingbird's woings can flap 200X per second during courtship. Such phenomena did not *evolve*. You can't even imagine a step-by-step approach which could have led us from paramecium to man. It never happened. Gould had to conjure the "punctuated equilibrium" theory b/c slow-moving Darwinism is not supported by the fossil record. Dawkins conceded the possibility of *space aliens* to Ben Stein.
Give me a break. Belief in macro-evolution is 1% science, and 99% speculation.:cool: Rob
 
This tells me that 46% are wise enough to realize that the other answers on the quiz did not fit with what we know to be true.
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
I apologize in advance if what I’m about to say might hurt your feelings. However, I think the whole ‘spectrum’ from Young Earth Creationist to Intelligent Design then straight to Evolutionist is a complete farce.

Look, it’s either you’re willing to give credit to the scientists for trying to figure out how life developed on earth or you believe a fairy tale where all life just magically popped out, followed by a belief in monsters and other mythical creatures.

Anything else that questions the truth of the fairy tale is an instant slippery slope to science and evolution. It’s either you’re literal with the Bible or you’re not. Thankfully, the Church is wise enough to opt for the latter and tries to educate us in discerning fact from fiction.
Click to expand...
Code: 
You didn't hurt my feelings in the least, LW. There is no conspiracy. Young biology students are taken under the wings of hard-core naturalists, and to get ahead, or in later life receive a study grant, you MUST get with the program. The wagons have been circled around a theory which is immolating. Sorry, there are no facts to stand upon. Do YOU believe that hundreds of millions of years ago, Grandma was an amoeba? I don't buy this secular fairy tale, and I never will. 
BTW, I have great respect for Pope Benedict, but I think that he is grievously out to lunch on this question. :blush: Blessings, Rob
 
edwest2 said:
Check the date on the Hebrew calendar. It is the year 5772.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Only a very small percentage of Orthodox Jews believe in the creationist theory of the universe. Most Orthodox, as well as other branches of Judaism, believe in the theory of evolution, with the stipulation that G-d started the process.
 
meltzerboy said:
Only a very small percentage of Orthodox Jews believe in the creationist theory of the universe. Most Orthodox, as well as other branches of Judaism, believe in the theory of evolution, with the stipulation that G-d started the process.
Click to expand...
God, the great kick starter? I don’t believe that for a second. Otherwise, in Genesis, we have the God Who Did Nothing, except kick a football.

Peace,
Ed
 
colmywaykurtz said:
The presence of amazingly long and complex (but identical) codon sequences of “junk DNA” shared between different species of primates is the basis for what’s called the “plagiarized errors” proof of evolutionary descent. The sharing of these identical sequences between species can’t be coincidental—that strains credulity far too much.

And before anyone says that “junk DNA” doesn’t exist, it’s a fact that junk DNA sequences have been excised from embryonic lab rat’s initial cells, the cells implanted in mother rats’ uteruses, the embryos carried to term and birthed, the young grown up and exhibited themselves to be perfectly healthy and ordinary rats. Obviously, they didn’t need these sequences—hence the term “junk DNA.”
Click to expand...
That is incorrect:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120424142253.htm

If I was building organisms with very similar body plans: one head, two arms, two legs, upper and lower torso, I would use the same assembly instructions with slight modifications per creature.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
That is incorrect:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120424142253.htm

If I was building organisms with very similar body plans: one head, two arms, two legs, upper and lower torso, I would use the same assembly instructions with slight modifications per creature.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Indeed, evidence abounds for common design from basic building blocks. Life has 500 or so conserved genes that just about any feature can be built if called upon by the mother’s instruction set.
 
edwest2 said:
God, the great kick starter? I don’t believe that for a second. Otherwise, in Genesis, we have the God Who Did Nothing, except kick a football.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
It’s a fairly big football, however! Besides, Billy Graham believes in the theory of evolution, so that settles the matter. And doesn’t the current Pope also believe in evolutionary theory?
 
meltzerboy said:
It’s a fairly big football, however! Besides, Billy Graham believes in the theory of evolution, so that settles the matter. And doesn’t the current Pope also believe in evolutionary theory?
Click to expand...
See my signatures.
 
buffalo said:
See my signatures.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe in a godless evolution based on random biochemical mechanisms, but rather a biological process started and maintained by G-d. If that is intelligent design, then fine. Does Pope Benedict believe in evolutionary theory or was that Pope John Paul II?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top