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

[Hokomai]

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.

You are confusing ‘testable’, which applies to theories and hypotheses, and ‘reproducible’, which applies to experimental results.

One example of the many ways in which evolutionary theory is testable is this: if the theory is correct, genetic material in different species should be, in part, identical. Test this. The material is, in part, identical. If the theory is correct, closer relatives (say, dogs and coyotes) should have more identical material in common than say (people and plants).

 

[vz71]

It’s a fairly big football, however! Besides, Billy Graham believes in the theory of evolution, so that settles the matter.

 

[edwest2]

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?

Billy Graham? Who made him the final word on the subject?

The current Pope? Here’s what he believes:

usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm

If a process occurred, it occurred infallibly.

Peace,
Ed

 

[exnihilo]

You are confusing ‘testable’, which applies to theories and hypotheses, and ‘reproducible’, which applies to experimental results.

One example of the many ways in which evolutionary theory is testable is this: if the theory is correct, genetic material in different species should be, in part, identical. Test this. The material is, in part, identical. If the theory is correct, closer relatives (say, dogs and coyotes) should have more identical material in common than say (people and plants).

That would seem to me a test of genetic theory. Such a test might suggest that genes are responsible for observable, physical characteristics of a life form. That would not be surprising and does not help evolution. If would not show the origin of those genes in a species which is the heart of the matter.

 

[meltzerboy]

Billy Graham? Who made him the final word on the subject?

The current Pope? Here’s what he believes:

usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm

If a process occurred, it occurred infallibly.

Peace,
Ed

Thanks for the link. It seems Pope Benedict XVI falls just short of endorsing intelligent design though not creationism. But he also has a healthy respect for science. Pope John Paul II appears to have been more in favor of evolutionary theory so long as G-d is involved in the process (that is, kicks the football).

How dare you criticize Billy Graham! This was something of a joke on my part although I do respect him.

 

[buffalo]

Thanks for the link. It seems Pope Benedict XVI falls just short of endorsing intelligent design though not creationism. But he also has a healthy respect for science. Pope John Paul II appears to have been more in favor of evolutionary theory so long as G-d is involved in the process (that is, kicks the football).

How dare you criticize Billy Graham! This was something of a joke on my part although I do respect him.

I believe JPII was heavily influenced by the Pontifical Academy which was made up of almost entirely atheist scientists. During his Pontificate evolutionary theory may have been the strongest. He does make the point about the ontological leap though.

 

[edwest2]

Thanks for the link. It seems Pope Benedict XVI falls just short of endorsing intelligent design though not creationism. But he also has a healthy respect for science. Pope John Paul II appears to have been more in favor of evolutionary theory so long as G-d is involved in the process (that is, kicks the football).

How dare you criticize Billy Graham! This was something of a joke on my part although I do respect him.

Healthy respect for science? You can read or not read what I link to, but it’s clear: it can’t be proven. Pope John Paul II is widely quoted by people who believe we came from nothing and nothing happens after we die. God? He’s not in any Biology textbook. It happened all by itself, like the discredited idea of spontaneous organization/generation.

Peace,
Ed

 

[RACJ]

Do YOU believe that hundreds of millions of years ago, Grandma was an amoeba?
I notice that there are many Christians who wish to fit comfortably in a world that ridicules our faith by embracing the theory of evolution, but everyone seems to wish to ignore this big issue: Did we come from single-celled organisms, ones that had previously sprung from non-life? This IS what is being shoved down our kids' throats under the auspices of biology and science. This is utter nonsense. Millions of organisms exists; some have died out and some survive. How God created us all is a mystery, but there is no evidence that He used a macro-evolutionary "process". ;) Rob

 

[buffalo]

Obviously, creationists are correct! Humans have NOT evolved much.

MEN HAVEN’T CHANGED IN 270,000 YEARS

 

[St_Francis]

Sorry, St Francis, clay is not passed on by descent. DNA is. Your response is simply not a response.

You wrote:

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.

I understood that to mean that you believe that the fact that similar DNA exists in different species proves that materialist macro-evolution has occurred.

I was simply pointing out that similarity of materials does not exclude a Creator.

 

[St_Francis]

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.

And scientists haven’t been able to figure out how to test the theory of evolution either.

When I read about evolution, what I read are *stories. *For example, there is a story about how eyes came to be: first there were animals with photo-receptor cells, then there were animals with something slightly more complex, etc. until we get to the “modern” eye (I put modern in quotes because a lot of the species they are mentioning still exist, which begs the question: why did they evolve?). All the while, we have no understanding of how something simple gets “evolved” into something more complex; how one members of one species suddenly become members of a separate species, etc.

I have no problem with the idea that God arranged evolution. I have a problem with the idea that evolution occurred without God at all.

 

[Nec5]

MEN HAVEN’T CHANGED IN 270,000 YEARS

Yeah, but women change every single day.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

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?

Because the alternative violates every scientific law and principle that has already been established (and may I add that these were speculations once too). The creation story is rife with fantastical elements that are more common in ancient mythology than anything resembling our reality.

Look, it’s either you believe our world was governed and is ruled by science or magic. You either take the absurd literalist perspective or start climbing up the slope of scientific understanding. What you fail to realize is that everything taught in schools about evolution has ties to other scientific disciplines. These in turn have principles that are just plain inviolable.

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.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Slow down there. Grandma? Wrong term. Primordial ancestor would be a better one.

And honestly, you don’t need to be a scientist to read Genesis (followed by several more books) and realize that the stories are drenched beyond redemption in too many mythological tropes. Better to understand the basic, spiritual, and moral truths in these stories (which was really the main purpose of myths even amongst pagans) than take them literally.

The world is not 6000 years old.
Dinosaurs did not live alongside man.
There is no such thing as a fire-breathing sea-monster named Leviathan.
There is no such thing as a giant lizard-beast called Behemoth.
Egyptian ‘sorcery’ cannot turn water into blood, summon a horde of frogs, or transform staves into snakes.

If you’re really not a Young Earth creationist, you should be prepared to actually accept any of the above (and more). However, once you do that, you’ll be hard-pressed to start reconciling and that’s where you have to face uncomfortable truths.

I repeat. You’re either a literalist or you’re not.

 

[gcharles]

I see some criticism of my last post. Here’s my answer. If there are scientific errors in the bible please identify them. If there are historical errors in the bible please identify them. The bible is more than a book of hope. The church must get over the Galileo paranoia. There is nothing in the bible that say the earth is in th the center of the universe. If the bible is not a history book how can you confirm the historical event that Jesus rose from the dead. I am not the only Catholic that believes this. Do some research an you will find that evolution doesn’t even qualify as a theory let alone a fact. It is only a postulate because there is no empirical evidence

I will never water down the magnificent creation of God. By the way that’s what the apostolic church believed. .

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I see some criticism of my last post. Here’s my answer. If there are scientific errors in the bible please identify them.

I got some for you.

If pagan Egyptian sorcery can turn water into blood, why isn’t the world being ruled by evil Egyptian overlords threatening to do the same to the Earth’s water supply?

If Leviathan and Behemoth were real, why aren’t they trashing cities like Tokyo or New York?

There is nothing in the bible that say the earth is in th the center of the universe.

Modern geocentrism would disagree with you.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism#Biblical_references

 

[colmywaykurtz]

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

Well, it appears that it’s been awhile since I dipped in these particular waters. That article and the several others it led me to are some heavy food for thought. It WOULD appear that most “junk” DNA isn’t junk. Interesting.

 

[Petergee]

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.

In** fact,** eh? Please name one such person (somebody I would know) who would be a Christian except that he came to believe the theory of macro evolution. I really can’t imagine how or why it would threaten someone’s faith. .

 

[buffalo]

Dinosaurs did not live alongside man.
There is no such thing as a fire-breathing sea-monster named Leviathan.
.

Hmmmmm…

The soft tissue finds cast doubt on that.

Ever see a cow breathe fire?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

The soft tissue finds cast doubt on that.

Yeah well, the fact that our survival rate would have been dangerously low alongside such creatures makes it hard to believe.

Hmmmmm…Ever see a cow breathe fire?

Nope.

Oh yeah and for future reference, standards of fire breath abilities apply when trying to prove the existence of mythological monsters. Methane gas theories are too weak. You’d need something on this scale.

Did I also mention there are standards for the impenetrable hide too?

 

[buffalo]

Yeah well, the fact that our survival rate would have been dangerously low alongside such creatures makes it hard to believe.

Nope.

Oh yeah and for future reference, standards of fire breath abilities apply when trying to prove the existence of mythological monsters. Methane gas theories are too weak. You’d need something on this scale.