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

[vz71]

It takes all kinds I guess.

Well, how many hours are in a day?

 

[johnnyjones]

God is infinite.
God is omnipotent…
God needs nothing.

And now back to our regularly scheduled thread.

Absolutely, and with all that he can create the world in six days as he said. “Regularly scheduled thread?” My questions are more than slightly related to this thread since I am one of the “46%” holding creationist views of origins.

 

[johnnyjones]

Fundamentalists use that argument too when at a loss in the face of a Catholic apologists’ credentials.

The fact is, those people have knowledge, even those you claim who don’t have certification. Chances are, even if they didn’t, their knowledge came from academic resources. Some of them even make use of people with the academic knowledge coughsBill Gatescoughs.

Read my statement again. Hard. The influence and reach of academia is undeniable. Let’s not fool ourselves.

Again, a false dilemma. Someone here stated the complexity of analyzing the Bible. Maybe he should be suggesting links and books to you next.

You wanna know why even a Humanities graduate like me is taking this personal? It’s cuz creationists are making a mockery of what people like me fantasize about. I actually WISH our world was like those in ancient myths. We love the way myths defy and disregard the so-called principles of science in favor of the fantastic in order to express wondrous concepts (and in some cases, religious truth). People who insist on literal creationism ruin it for us by implying that God somehow changed His mind, changed that wonderful realm, and somehow made our world closer to the one reflected in sitcoms and warring news networks.

I don’t make references to the field of mythology here just to flaunt. People who take a literal view of Genesis are figuratively flipping off those of us who try to understand what really matters in ancient stories. They distort the study of myth AND the study of science by forcing them together in the most incompatible manner.

They have every right to be criticized.

“Ancient myths?” You’ve reduced the OT which is the word of God according to the church to that? Does Adam matter? Does Abel (part of the creation account) matter who’s name Jesus quoted in the same sentence as Zechariah? Tell me which parts of the OT you KNOW to be myth and which parts are actual accounts? Or is it all a fable?

Raising people from the dead, making those born blind see, calming raging storm, turning water into wine immediately etc. were all done by a human, Jesus. These acts defy science. Are Jesus’ acts myths?

 

[johnnyjones]

I’m telling you that now. I’ve met several who don’t fit your bill. You and the rest seem to be in love with mankind’s latest claims to knowledge. I will remind you that this too is mentioned ad nauseum in the Bible via the “believing themselves wise, they became fools” argument.

You should not be putting much stock into worldly success, anyway. I can list thousands of successful people without accreditation and certification that are wealthy. I can also list people who are successful with those accolades that are fools.

All I can tell you folks is that this is one of the reasons Christianity is rotting in the West. Once you begin doubting everything in the Old Testament, you undercut the New. I don’t think it necessarily matters if you believe the earth is 6000 years old or 6 billion. It’s probably neither. What is problematic are the attacks on people who take a literal view. They aren’t losing their faith. It’s those who worship scientific determinism that are leaving the faith or distorting it.

The Catholic Church asserts that you can believe either and you can even include evolution or not. It’s our choice. Why, then, do so many here reject with such disdain traditional literal interpretations? It’s a kind of intellectual hobsnobbery similar to that described in the Book of Wisdom. It’s kind of pathetic, kind of sad, and not particularly Christian.

Amen brother!

 

[vz71]

Absolutely, and with all that he can create the world in six days as he said. “Regularly scheduled thread?” My questions are more than slightly related to this thread since I am one of the “46%” holding creationist views of origins.

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?

God did not need millions of years, or six days, or anything else.
However it was done, it was done by his choice and exactly how he wanted it done.

It does not make logical sense to claim a ‘need’ of God as the basis for an argument.

One could just as easily ask why God would need 6 days.
And get just the same answer.

 

[buffalo]

From the survey:

Those With Postgraduate Education Least Likely to Believe in Creationist Explanation

um. . . . .

DUH!

I wonder how many of those post graduate education have actually did any experiments or looked at the base data. I submit, very, very few.

 

[johnnyjones]

God did not need millions of years, or six days, or anything else.
However it was done, it was done by his choice and exactly how he wanted it done.

It does not make logical sense to claim a ‘need’ of God as the basis for an argument.

One could just as easily ask why God would need 6 days.
And get just the same answer.

“However it was done” is a reasonable answer but I would side with the idea of instant creation. “Need” was not intended to mean God “had requirements” but I understand your point. The miracles of Genesis are no less than the miracles of Jesus in the NT. Is the creation account any less spectacular that the miracle of the incarnation? One seems by most Christians readily accepted, the other vehemently denied. The church does not mandate figurative accounts only in scripture. What if we took other important doctrines and made them symbols only?

 

[buffalo]

“However it was done” is a reasonable answer but I would side with the idea of instant creation. “Need” was not intended to mean God “had requirements” but I understand your point. The miracles of Genesis are no less than the miracles of Jesus in the NT. Is the creation account any less spectacular that the miracle of the incarnation? One seems by most Christians readily accepted, the other vehemently denied. The church does not mandate figurative accounts only in scripture. What if we took other important doctrines and made them symbols only?

I would say God though creation in an instant. **IDvolution **- God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

 

[ringil]

I’m not entirely sure what that even proves. Education is not the same as schooling.

Do you have a postgraduate education or are you “self-taught”?

We could do a survey here related to education and views on ID, YEC, etc. and I believe I could predict the results.

 

[St_Francis]

…You wanna know why even a Humanities graduate like me is taking this personal? It’s cuz creationists are making a mockery of what people like me fantasize about. I actually WISH our world was like those in ancient myths. We love the way myths defy and disregard the so-called principles of science in favor of the fantastic in order to express wondrous concepts (and in some cases, religious truth). People who insist on literal creationism ruin it for us by implying that God somehow changed His mind, changed that wonderful realm, and somehow made our world closer to the one reflected in sitcoms and warring news networks.

When we read the Bible, it’s a compact distillation of what occurred over at least 3,000 years, to just a relatively few people. Most people did not live like that or experience most of those things.*

In our day, we live mostly in the world, sitcoms and all, *but that is not the entirety of reality! *It is only the material side of reality.

Saint Padre Pio, who died in 1968 and was recently canonized, had the gifts of discerning people’s sins in Confession and bilocation–he would appear to people far away from where he actually was. He was very close to God and many people experienced miracles large and small through his intercession.

That is just one recent example.

I think in a way that we are blinded by our world. It’s like the fact that there are stars which are much larger than our own Sun, but we cannot see them during the day because our seeing of them is obscured by the closeness of the Sun. In the same way, material reality is so easy to see because it is close and so vivid, it is a distraction from supernatural reality, which is soft and still and quiet.

I often have a lot of trouble praying the Rosary, or, I should say, getting around to praying the Rosary. Finally it came to me that praying is *hard work, *and that it is “practicing” paying attention to the supernatural. Paying attention to the supernatural does not come easy to us! We have to work at it. Many of us are just amateurs at praying, like high school kids who know a few songs on the guitar, but some of us are virtuosos like Andre Segovia, and these people are saints (whether known and canonized or anonymous).

I am sorry that I reminded you of fundamentalists arguing against the Faith with it–I was just rrying to show that Christ had said that apparent miracles would be performed which were not from God. The Enemy, devils can perform preternatural acts. I mentioned that in reference to what you were saying about the Egyptian sorcerers.

 

[exnihilo]

Do you have a postgraduate education or are you “self-taught”?

We could do a survey here related to education and views on ID, YEC, etc. and I believe I could predict the results.

You’d probably be right and all that would show is that people that spend decades being indoctrinated in the education system tend to think alike. I only have a B.A. But I’ve met plenty of people with much more education who are quite frankly stupid. They don’t know how to think, but they no doubt have memorized lots of facts some of which might even be true. The truth is not determined by how many people believe something or what kind of people believe it. If we took those same well educated people’s opinion as truth we’d also have to believe there is no God.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

The age of the earth was calculated by the 17th Century Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh, James Ussher. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

It does not say how old human are.

 

[ringil]

You’d probably be right and all that would show is that people that spend decades being indoctrinated in the education system tend to think alike. I only have a B.A. But I’ve met plenty of people with much more education who are quite frankly stupid. They don’t know how to think, but they no doubt have memorized lots of facts some of which might even be true. The truth is not determined by how many people believe something or what kind of people believe it. If we took those same well educated people’s opinion as truth we’d also have to believe there is no God.

Your statement is classic of those who decry education. Many of those lack a higher education and say this to inflate their “self knowledge”.

My wife has a Ph.D., and is a Catholic. My daughter’s godparents (both Ph.D.'s) are Orthodox. Countless MD’s and Ph.D’s. believe in God.

All priests have at least a Master’s degree. Nearly all (all?) Bishops have a Ph.D. if not more than one.

“self teaching” is, all to often, teaching one’s self into idiocy. We see that around here- folks seek the most fringe and exotic sources of information rather than seeking the more established facts, and cover their ignorance by claiming that the mainstream is biased and seeks to “indoctrinate”. It’s sad really, anti-intellectualism.

 

[exnihilo]

Your statement is classic of those who decry education. Many of those lack a higher education and say this to inflate their “self knowledge”.

My wife has a Ph.D., and is a Catholic. My daughter’s godparents (both Ph.D.'s) are Orthodox. Countless MD’s and Ph.D’s. believe in God.

All priests have at least a Master’s degree. Nearly all (all?) Bishops have a Ph.D. if not more than one.

“self teaching” is, all to often, teaching one’s self into idiocy. We see that around here- folks seek the most fringe and exotic sources of information rather than seeking the more established facts, and cover their ignorance by claiming that the mainstream is biased and seeks to “indoctrinate”. It’s sad really, anti-intellectualism.

My statement is both classic and true. If our education system was like the Socratic system then it would be different. As it is you get ahead by repeating back what you are told.

Indoctrination is what education is. I’m not against all indoctrination. Early education must be almost entirely indoctrination. But when it lasts for twenty years there is not much free thinking left in a person. The people I’ve met with higher degrees typically are not the most free thinking because that kind of person isn’t going to enjoy the modern education system all that much. Its just like you aren’t going to find many entrepreneurs who worked as a bank clerk for thirty years.

The point of your comment was that those who do not believe in Evolution are uneducated and or not very bright. That is the same as saying truth is the dominion of the educated. The higher levels of educations probably about equally believe in Evolution as disbelieve in God. So where does that leave us?

 

[Jeffrey]

Nothing frightening about it.

Frightening. I guess those are the “red” states.

 

[Jeffrey]

Thats what i’m saying. Least I know i’m right.

It takes all kinds I guess.

 

[Jeffrey]

It does glorify Him… for its true.

For most of its history, the Church existed before we had discovered that the sun anchors our solar system, and only very recently have we understood what we do now about evolution and natural selection.

Creationism does not glorify God? How could it, it is untrue, if it means that evolution has not occurred. Or would you say that God designed things like DNA just to trick us? How do you explain the number of types of dog, or the success of the HIV retrovirus, if evolution does not exist?

 

[St_Francis]

For most of its history, the Church existed before we had discovered that the sun anchors our solar system, and only very recently have we understood what we do now about evolution and natural selection.

Creationism does not glorify God? How could it, it is untrue, if it means that evolution has not occurred.

You are assuming what you are arguing for. If it turns out that Ceationism is true, then Creationism would glorify God, no?

Or would you say that God designed things like DNA just to trick us? How do you explain the number of types of dog, or the success of the HIV retrovirus, if evolution does not exist?

The two examples you mention are examples only of micro-evolution, not macro-evution. Altho we have Chihauhuas and Saint Bernards, they are still members of the same species.

 

[someperson555]

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”**

that is why eugenics is necesary. since random mutations depend totally on the environment, we humans must make sure that preferable genetic traits are passed down so thet evolution will take a positive direction. one of the downsides of our sedantary decadent lifestyles is that we dont use our bodies and minds anymore since machines do it for us. this is the problem that can be remedied by selective breeding. therefore evolution is positive or negative depending on the environment.
and LOL please stop quoting that creationist website, its full of errors.

 

[someperson555]

youtube.com/watch?v=t_NNU7bBGgc