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.
Lost_Wanderer said:
…Furthermore, I demand that you stop confusing my position with that of atheists. Just because I don’t believe in magical unicorns and giant sea monsters, doesn’t mean I don’t believe in what really matters in our Faith.

P.S.

Distorting my position counts as bearing false witness. Spare me your judgmental verse-quoting and take the beam out of your own eye…
Click to expand...
I apologize for distorting you position; all I know is what I see written on the page and it looked to me like you were doing that.

I think it quite ironic that you accuse me of doing what you actually did. I was not being judgemental; I did not accuse you of a sin. Maybe you need to look to your own eyes, sounds like you are being a tad defensive!
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
Uh-huh, but why stop there? Why not also believe that the plague of blood was really some form of soil/mud pollution? Why can’t the plague of darkness simply stand for an eclipse?

Why can’t the creation account simply be symbolic of how the Earth came to be as science explained it?
Why accept OT literalism at all?

Ground level. Meet the slope.
Click to expand...
In a nut-shell, in a non-convoluted manner, in a non-equivocal, straightforward, straight-to-the-point fashion, what is the authoritative, undeniable, definitive, irrefutable explanation that science has for how the Earth came to be?
 
someperson555 said:
*facepalm
i never said that God didnt create life, he created the universe from the moment of the big bang and guided evolution from then on. (and this is the official stance of the catholic church).
its called “theistic evolution”. and while the minor details have still not been worked out (i.e, the exact moment that God gave man’s ancestors spirits) traditional creationism has been debunked, all one needs to do is look at geology, it is already proven that the earth is older than 6 thousand years. and we can even compare similarities in the genetic codes of animals and humans. a chimp is 98% genetically indentical to a human’s genome, this is no coincidence.
not to mention dinosaur fossils.
does the evolutionary theory have some holes? yes.
but it makes a heck of a lot more sense than creationism. creationists have LOT to answer for, like the age of the earth, the age of the universe, the fossils of dinosuars, HUMAN civilizations older than 6,000 years. (the neolithic farmers were building civilizations at 40,000 BC)
so yes, whoever believes creationism needs a lesson in logic.
Click to expand...
Did God know what Adam would look like?

Chimp vs human - now known to be less than 70%.
 
Metaphors and allegories! It’s an excuse not to believe in the power of God. Of course some things are not literal but what parts of the bible do you want to pick to be real, and what parts according to how you feel do you make symbolism?

It’s an insult to say God couldn’t make the earth in a literal 6 days if he wanted to. Also, theistic evolution means God had to have millions of years to get it all together. If man was simian at one time a reference in scripture would be there. Man was NEVER a slithering ooze.
 
You do know that pigs share a fair percentage of genome with human beings? So in what stage of evolution would you place them? Single cell, anemonas, shark-headed mammals, pigs, apes’ ancestor, hominids, Adam and Eve. Would that seem about right as a general sketch? Welcome to fantasy land.
 
Is 70%, 80%, 90% shared genome evidence to you that at some point in time what was to be human was one with what was going to be, say pigs? Is largely shared genome evidence of common ancestry or is largely shared genome evidence of…nothing? If God designed the human genome to have different levels of similarity or dissimilarity to that of different animal species, he was certainly free to choose to do so.
 
Does sharing genes prove Evo? I mean isn’t that correlation without (neccesarily) causation?

<I don’t have a horse in this race, but I am curious about the misapplication of logic>
 
RACJ said:
So, you believe in intelligent design through evolution? Know that your belief is absolutely NOT taught in biology classrooms; in fact naturalists teach that a god is absolutely unnecessary for evolution. If you ever wonder why so many young people lose their faith, look no further than this silly secular theory dressed as real science.
Now, I am not a young earth creationist. But I know that scientists have not a clue concerning the advent of consciousness, or about how sight or hearing evolved from nothingness. Only mere speculation. Nothingness does not know that there is anything to see or hear, YET these senses came into being. And millions more curiosities. Our brains can fire a million billion synapses per second. This phenomena evolved? Were we all once at the grunt stage? If so, we’d have all been eaten alive by other lower animals. T Rex would have turned us all into rare steaks! 😉 Rob
Click to expand...
ofcourse its not taught in biology classrooms, because biology doesnt concern itself with the existence of God, it merely focuses on how things work and how things are they way they are as another poster pointed out.
and i hope you know that your theory isnt accepted in creationist circles either. youre just tailoring your beliefs so you can still cling to them. you know that the geologists are right when they have proven that the earth is over 6,000 years old, so you say “well uh, im not a young earth creationist” you cant just cherry pick your beliefs like that.
sight and hearing and the other senses evolved through natural selection, we can now even estimate how long it took for eyes to evolve. and consciousness has to do with the spirit, so the advent of consciousness was probably around the time God decided to make the anthropoid apes sentient.
evolution was guided by God, so he knew our ancestors, and he directed their evolution in a certain way.
and evolution is still ongoing, did you know that theres more genetic diversity among humans today than ther was 15,000 years ago. the R1b haplogroup didnt even exist until ten thousand years ago. and only 10% of the human genetic code has been expressed, that means we still have 90% of evolving to do.
 
someperson555 said:
and evolution is still ongoing, did you know that theres more genetic diversity among humans today than ther was 15,000 years ago. the R1b haplogroup didnt even exist until ten thousand years ago. and only 10% of the human genetic code has been expressed, that means we still have 90% of evolving to do.
Click to expand...
I would call this - devolution.
 
You say that because you know the theory does not directly state it, but if all things are derived from a single celled organism what other conclusion can be drawn?
 
someperson555 said:
um why?
Click to expand...
Mutations are mostly neutral or deleterious.

DNA actively fights against mutation, going through several iterations to prevent them.

Evolution is a Natural Process Running Backwards

Dr. John Sanford “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome”

** “a vastly superior operating system”**

** “a galaxy of design and complexity”**

** “over 90% of the genome is actively transcribed”**

** “the genome has multiple overlapping messages”**

** “data compression on the most sophisticated level”**

** “more and more the genome looks like a super super set of programs”**

** “more and more it looks like top down design”**

"the reality is everybody is mutant"

** “the selection process really has nothing to grab hold of”**

** “so it’s kind of a trade secret amongst population geneticists,any well informed population geneticist understands man is degenerating”**

** “so in deep geological time we should have been extinct a long time ago”**

** “the human race is degenerating at 1-5% per generation”**
 
MichaelTDoyle said:
Does sharing genes prove Evo? I mean isn’t that correlation without (neccesarily) causation?

<I don’t have a horse in this race, but I am curious about the misapplication of logic>
Click to expand...
Yes correlation doesn’t imply causation. I’m like you, I’m avidly curious as to this whole evolution business. With the premises that God created everything from nothing and that Adam and Eve were the first properly human beings (soul-infused) from whom we all derive (rules out polygeneism), anything within the framework of these premises is ok, but has to be validated by science. If anything dating back thousands of years can be validated with certainty is doubtful, I think.
 
Robertanthony said:
Yes correlation doesn’t imply causation. I’m like you, I’m avidly curious as to this whole evolution business. With the premises that God created everything from nothing and that Adam and Eve were the first properly human beings (soul-infused) from whom we all derive (rules out polygeneism), anything within the framework of these premises is ok, but has to be validated by science. If anything dating back thousands of years can be validated with certainty is doubtful, I think.
Click to expand...
It is not validated. Since it is not empirical, that is observable, repeatable and predictable, evolutionism is philosophy.
 
Ummm… no its not. Not even close.
SaintPatrick333 said:
evolution and creationism are essentially the same thing. Just because we have an idea “how” God created the universe, certainly does not mean that takes His hand out of its creation. It only affirms it.
Click to expand...
 
Define ‘unnecessary’. Not mentioning God whilst explaining the way life could’ve possibly developed is not the same as saying God is unnecessary. The necessity of a creator is further in the realm of philosophy and theology than science. Science only explains what things are and how they work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RACJ
T Rex would have turned us all into rare steaks! Rob
That’s on the ridiculous assumption that we lived alongside dinos. Please know that The Flinstones is not a series of scientific documentaries.
"Unnecessary" needs no defining. Virtually all naturalists scoff at people who don't get the point that everything happened without metaphysical intervention. And you unwittingly point to the problem: Your willingness to exclude God from science. You are consigning future generations to the darkness of unbelief. The TRex line was a joke. Substitute "lion" and my point still stands. A dimwitted consciousness would turn us into prey. :rolleyes: Rob
 
And why is it the same God we believe can raise the dead instantly and turn water in to wine instantly needs millions of years to get the basics going?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top