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

[buffalo]

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.

You are actually advocating eugenics? Who makes the decisions? Mortal men? How do you know you would make the cut?

Do you actually know the Cornell studies say?

Which one. Please show the errors.

 

[gcharles]

First of all evolution is evolving into higher life forms. Because there are different breeds of dogs doesn’t prove evolution. We are so quick to be poitically correct. I hope that wasn’t a Catholic that posted that.

 

[gcharles]

Most people who have postgraduate degrees don’t accept creationism. Oh the wisdom of men is foolishness to God. Here is the challenge for any of you. By the way I have two degrees. You all say evolution is a fact. Believers say evolution isn’t a fact it’s only a theory. Through research and a quote from Richard Dawkins I have found that evolution ISN’T even a theory. There is no empirical evidence. If there is any let me know. If someone disagrees with Sacred Scripture you should thoroughly research, The challenge is on.

 

[johnnyjones]

Most people who have postgraduate degrees don’t accept creationism. Oh the wisdom of men is foolishness to God. Here is the challenge for any of you. By the way I have two degrees. You all say evolution is a fact. Believers say evolution isn’t a fact it’s only a theory. Through research and a quote from Richard Dawkins I have found that evolution ISN’T even a theory. There is no empirical evidence. If there is any let me know. If someone disagrees with Sacred Scripture you should thoroughly research, The challenge is on.

I am not an evolutionist but they will tell you even gravity is a theory, and we know it to be true. The difference with the evolutionary model is that it can not be demonstrated. Where I still don’t find the logic in the evolutionist mindset is right at the start. They will always acknowledge that “elements” came together and started the process of life. And, no matter how you want to re-word it, those elements somehow arranged themselves into complexity.

If one can believe in “infinite elements”, because that is what those elements would have to be, why take a hard core approach towards denying something else could be infinite? That “something else” being a spirit, God. I am not speaking of theistic evolutionists who at least see an intelligence behind it all, but the non deist scientist (or citizen) that embraces random chance complexity. To the theistic (Christian) evolutionist, I also find a strange melding of ideas. With all the works of Jesus contradicting natural laws and science, why jump on board the evolution train?

Adaptation is not evolution in the traditional sense, don’t confuse the two. I’m a creationist and believe adaptation plays a clear role on earth. Also remember many pre- geologists, physicists, biologists enter into academia having to accept evolution as a must. Dissenting from your peers is not an easy thing to do in that environment, and some hold back even after seeing the big leaps made by their comrades to preserve the “faith”.

I’m not surprised that “46%” hold creationist views of human origins, it is most likely higher. Is it supposed to be a shock? The catholic church does not mandate that you believe in theistic evolution. In fact many in the church had long believed otherwise.

 

[Blacksword]

I am not an evolutionist but they will tell you even gravity is a theory, and we know it to be true. The difference with the evolutionary model is that it can not be demonstrated. Where I still don’t find the logic in the evolutionist mindset is right at the start. They will always acknowledge that “elements” came together and started the process of life. And, no matter how you want to re-word it, those elements somehow arranged themselves into complexity.

If one can believe in “infinite elements”, because that is what those elements would have to be, why take a hard core approach towards denying something else could be infinite? That “something else” being a spirit, God. I am not speaking of theistic evolutionists who at least see an intelligence behind it all, but the non deist scientist (or citizen) that embraces random chance complexity. To the theistic (Christian) evolutionist, I also find a strange melding of ideas. With all the works of Jesus contradicting natural laws and science, why jump on board the evolution train?

Adaptation is not evolution in the traditional sense, don’t confuse the two. I’m a creationist and believe adaptation plays a clear role on earth. Also remember many pre- geologists, physicists, biologists enter into academia having to accept evolution as a must. Dissenting from your peers is not an easy thing to do in that environment, and some hold back even after seeing the big leaps made by their comrades to preserve the “faith”.

I’m not surprised that “46%” hold creationist views of human origins, it is most likely higher. Is it supposed to be a shock? The catholic church does not mandate that you believe in theistic evolution. In fact many in the church had long believed otherwise.

I weary of these debates. The Bible is not a book, it is a library, a collection of many different books and different genres of literature. Genesis is NOT the same genre as the gospel of Matthew or the letters of St. Paul!

And to the creationists: do you realize that at this point evolutionary biology is the underpinning of nearly EVERY natural science? Without it our understanding of Virology, Kinetics, physiology, developmental psychology, and dozens of other fields falls apart? Evolutionary biology explains WHOLLY the natural phenomena we see in geologic strata of fossil placement, genetics, anatomy and physiology, and other major areas of research and study, without a single instance of contradictory data. Think about this for a minute: all you need to disprove evolutionary biology is to find ONE example of, say, a Labrador retriever fossil buried in the same layer as a triceratops…and yet this has never happened, not even once…don’t you think that is pretty strong evidence?

And to those who love the reference to the early fathers or Christian teachings, St. Augustine not only did NOT interpret the Genesis creation account in literalist fashion, he urged Christians to be knowledgable about subjects they discuss and to abandon positions that are plainly false to avoid making the faith appear ridiculous to others. Origen also said unequivocally that Genesis was not a literal historical account of creation.

But I’ll say this: if you reject science, be consistent about it at least. Don’t reject the foundation and then get vaccines, the reasons they would purport to have prophylactic benefit are based on Evolutionary biology! Medicines or treatments that were tested on animals first also must go: the only reason testing on, say, chimps, is of benefit for human application is under the assumption a priori that human and chimp biology is closely related by Evolution. Don’t try to have your cake and eat it too. Live like the Amish: at least they are consistent.

 

[buffalo]

I weary of these debates. The Bible is not a book, it is a library, a collection of many different books and different genres of literature. Genesis is NOT the same genre as the gospel of Matthew or the letters of St. Paul!

And to the creationists: do you realize that at this point evolutionary biology is the underpinning of nearly EVERY natural science? Without it our understanding of Virology, Kinetics, physiology, developmental psychology, and dozens of other fields falls apart? Evolutionary biology explains WHOLLY the natural phenomena we see in geologic strata of fossil placement, genetics, anatomy and physiology, and other major areas of research and study, without a single instance of contradictory data. Think about this for a minute: all you need to disprove evolutionary biology is to find ONE example of, say, a Labrador retriever fossil buried in the same layer as a triceratops…and yet this has never happened, not even once…don’t you think that is pretty strong evidence?

And to those who love the reference to the early fathers or Christian teachings, St. Augustine not only did NOT interpret the Genesis creation account in literalist fashion, he urged Christians to be knowledgable about subjects they discuss and to abandon positions that are plainly false to avoid making the faith appear ridiculous to others. Origen also said unequivocally that Genesis was not a literal historical account of creation.

But I’ll say this: if you reject science, be consistent about it at least. Don’t reject the foundation and then get vaccines, the reasons they would purport to have prophylactic benefit are based on Evolutionary biology! Medicines or treatments that were tested on animals first also must go: the only reason testing on, say, chimps, is of benefit for human application is under the assumption a priori that human and chimp biology is closely related by Evolution. Don’t try to have your cake and eat it too. Live like the Amish: at least they are consistent.

Not really, fossils are rare.

There is all kinds of contradictory evidence if you would be open to it.

Are you familiar with the flume experiments and sedimentation?

St Augustine? Don’t cherry pick his works. Do you know his thoughts on prime matter?

Baloney detector just went sky high on this last paragraph. :whacky:

I accept well done experiments and valid reasoning of the results. Assumptions? Perhaps we might get further if we assume creation and common design. Trotting out this canard is ridiculous. Are the resultant use of all science always good?

What has been the continuous Church teaching and understanding of creation? Produce a magisterial document that changed it.

By the way, all Catholics are creationists by definition.

 

[johnnyjones]

I weary of these debates. The Bible is not a book, it is a library, a collection of many different books and different genres of literature. Genesis is NOT the same genre as the gospel of Matthew or the letters of St. Paul!

And to the creationists: do you realize that at this point evolutionary biology is the underpinning of nearly EVERY natural science? Without it our understanding of Virology, Kinetics, physiology, developmental psychology, and dozens of other fields falls apart? Evolutionary biology explains WHOLLY the natural phenomena we see in geologic strata of fossil placement, genetics, anatomy and physiology, and other major areas of research and study, without a single instance of contradictory data. Think about this for a minute: all you need to disprove evolutionary biology is to find ONE example of, say, a Labrador retriever fossil buried in the same layer as a triceratops…and yet this has never happened, not even once…don’t you think that is pretty strong evidence?

And to those who love the reference to the early fathers or Christian teachings, St. Augustine not only did NOT interpret the Genesis creation account in literalist fashion, he urged Christians to be knowledgable about subjects they discuss and to abandon positions that are plainly false to avoid making the faith appear ridiculous to others. Origen also said unequivocally that Genesis was not a literal historical account of creation.

But I’ll say this: if you reject science, be consistent about it at least. Don’t reject the foundation and then get vaccines, the reasons they would purport to have prophylactic benefit are based on Evolutionary biology! Medicines or treatments that were tested on animals first also must go: the only reason testing on, say, chimps, is of benefit for human application is under the assumption a priori that human and chimp biology is closely related by Evolution. Don’t try to have your cake and eat it too. Live like the Amish: at least they are consistent.

Heb 12:24 says,“and to Jesus, mediator of a new covenant, and to a sprinkling of blood which speaks better than Abel.” It is important that Abel be real. From the creation account we know who he is, and Jesus’ REAL blood is asscociated with Abels. We can not have fictitious stories with fictitious blood explaining the nature of Jesus.

You are of course correct that the bible contains different books, but they are all linked, and there is a necessity for that being the entire word of God. You sound keyed up, that evolution (species to species) must be correct. Evolution, in the dogmatic sense does not explain “wholly” anything. The universe is on the way down. Things are getting less complex. It is not on an upward path.

Believing that God made your ancestors chimps is your choice. Similar DNA is not the “same” DNA. “Cake and eating it?” I believe the word of God. You have added something to his word because , “it just couldn’t have happened like in Genesis”. Using that logic Jesus just couldn’t have done miracles. You will also have to figure out which books of the OT are “real” and which you want to make into a fable.

 

[RACJ]

I am not an evolutionist but they will tell you even gravity is a theory, and we know it to be true. The difference with the evolutionary model is that it can not be demonstrated. Where I still don’t find the logic in the evolutionist mindset is right at the start. They will always acknowledge that “elements” came together and started the process of life. And, no matter how you want to re-word it, those elements somehow arranged themselves into complexity.

If one can believe in “infinite elements”, because that is what those elements would have to be, why take a hard core approach towards denying something else could be infinite? That “something else” being a spirit, God. I am not speaking of theistic evolutionists who at least see an intelligence behind it all, but the non deist scientist (or citizen) that embraces random chance complexity. To the theistic (Christian) evolutionist, I also find a strange melding of ideas. With all the works of Jesus contradicting natural laws and science, why jump on board the evolution train?

Adaptation is not evolution in the traditional sense, don’t confuse the two. I’m a creationist and believe adaptation plays a clear role on earth. Also remember many pre- geologists, physicists, biologists enter into academia having to accept evolution as a must. Dissenting from your peers is not an easy thing to do in that environment, and some hold back even after seeing the big leaps made by their comrades to preserve the “faith”.

I’m not surprised that “46%” hold creationist views of human origins, it is most likely higher. Is it supposed to be a shock? The catholic church does not mandate that you believe in theistic evolution. In fact many in the church had long believed otherwise.

 Very well and simply stated, Johnny. Guys like Blacksword believe that we are rejecting *science*. No, we are merely holding evolutionary biology to the same standards  to which we hold other fields. Naturalism is more about politics and a secular world view than real science. We can't DEMONSTRATE how blind naturalism caused more complex organisms and billions of positive mutations therein, but we just KNOW that it did, once upon a time! :wink: Rob
 PS. I think that all evos are wrong, BUT i'd love to see some of you have the courage to insist that this puzzling "process" was *directed*. I don't hear any theistic evolutionist really fighting for this position, and you are thereby leaving an open field for the atheists to exploit our young people!

 

[Blacksword]

Not really, fossils are rare.

There is all kinds of contradictory evidence if you would be open to it.

Are you familiar with the flume experiments and sedimentation?

St Augustine? Don’t cherry pick his works. Do you know his thoughts on prime matter?

Baloney detector just went sky high on this last paragraph. :whacky:

I accept well done experiments and valid reasoning of the results. Assumptions? Perhaps we might get further if we assume creation and common design. Trotting out this canard is ridiculous. Are the resultant use of all science always good?

What has been the continuous Church teaching and understanding of creation? Produce a magisterial document that changed it.
By the way, all Catholics are creationists by definition.

The church has wisely not taught on matters of science. And St. Augustine did not find the creation account plausible as literal history, sorry but that’s a fact.

And we get farther with science and the evolutionary theory because it, unlike creationism, explains actual data and leads to useful things…like vaccines for instance. And your labeling of what I wrote about evotionary biology forming the underlining of multiple diverse areas of science as “baloney” shows you don’t know what you’re talking about. As with Virology, for example: evolution provides the coherent explanation as to WHY viruses mutate, how they change over time inane their resulting interaction with animals and humans, and why things like vaccination would function to prevent infection. This isn’t baloney, it’s accepted scientific fact.

 

[St_Francis]

I weary of these debates.

There’s a solution for that…

But I’ll say this: if you reject science, be consistent about it at least. Don’t reject the foundation and then get vaccines, the reasons they would purport to have prophylactic benefit are based on Evolutionary biology! Medicines or treatments that were tested on animals first also must go: the only reason testing on, say, chimps, is of benefit for human application is under the assumption a priori that human and chimp biology is closely related by Evolution. Don’t try to have your cake and eat it too. Live like the Amish: at least they are consistent.

Vaccinations were discovered/invented *before *Darwin wrote the Origin of Species; therefore, evolution is *not *necessary.

 

[Blacksword]

Very well and simply stated, Johnny. Guys like Blacksword believe that we are rejecting science. No, we are merely holding evolutionary biology to the same standards to which we hold other fields. Naturalism is more about politics and a secular world view than real science. We can’t DEMONSTRATE how blind naturalism caused more complex organisms and billions of positive mutations therein, but we just KNOW that it did, once upon a time! Rob
PS. I think that all evos are wrong, BUT i’d love to see some of you have the courage to insist that this puzzling “process” was directed. I don’t hear any theistic evolutionist really fighting for this position, and you are thereby leaving an open field for the atheists to exploit our young people!

Sure I think it was “directed”, is that what you wanted to hear? I just don’t think God directed it like a cosmic tinkerer. He planned and ordered it “from the beginning” such to unfold and such that He didn’t need to actively or overtly direct or force things along.

 

[buffalo]

The church has wisely not taught on matters of science. And St. Augustine did not find the creation account plausible as literal history, sorry but that’s a fact.

And we get farther with science and the evolutionary theory because it, unlike creationism, explains actual data and leads to useful things…like vaccines for instance. And your labeling of what I wrote about evotionary biology forming the underlining of multiple diverse areas of science as “baloney” shows you don’t know what you’re talking about. As with Virology, for example: evolution provides the coherent explanation as to WHY viruses mutate, how they change over time inane their resulting interaction with animals and humans, and why things like vaccination would function to prevent infection. This isn’t baloney, it’s accepted scientific fact.

Cite the proof.

Whoah - don’t confuse adaptation with macro.

In a word - why do viruses mutate?

Have you studied bacteria, their latent abilities, communication and gradients? It is more of a case for ID.

How about accidental discoveries? How about trial and error? How about inventions of necessity? None of these needed evo. As another poster said what about discoveries made before evo?

 

[buffalo]

Sure I think it was “directed”, is that what you wanted to hear? I just don’t think God directed it like a cosmic tinkerer. He planned and ordered it “from the beginning” such to unfold and such that He didn’t need to actively or overtly direct or force things along.

Planned and ordered it from the beginning - guess who thought that? Well now, our good friend St Augustine.

Did God know what Adam would look like?

 

[Blacksword]

There’s a solution for that…

Vaccinations were discovered/invented *before *Darwin wrote the Origin of Species; therefore, evolution is *not *necessary.

Sigh…read my post. Evolution underpins vaccinations in that it explains WHY they work. Without it its just a lucky coincidence that viruses happen to work a certain why with no explanation.

 

[buffalo]

Sigh…read my post. Evolution underpins vaccinations in that it explains WHY they work. Without it its just a lucky coincidence that viruses happen to work a certain why with no explanation.

Should we ignore their design?

 

[Blacksword]

Cite the proof.

Whoah - don’t confuse adaptation with macro.

In a word - why do viruses mutate?

Have you studied bacteria, their latent abilities, communication and gradients? It is more of a case for ID.

How about accidental discoveries? How about trial and error? How about inventions of necessity? None of these needed evo. As another poster said what about discoveries made before evo?

Evolution IS adaptation. Viruses mutate because ALL life does so (we’ll bypass the interesting but irrelevant tangent as to whether viruses are “life” and assume for discussion they meet the standard). If “IDvolution” has testable, falsifiable truth claims I’m sure your theory will be making headway in academia in no time, and perhaps you’ll be in line for a Nobel Prize. If not, then it belongs in theology and philosophy classes perhaps (not that I’m denigrating either of those disciplines, I am a philosophy major, or was, as it were) but not in the science classroom.

Accidental discoveries still need explaining, and eventually are. We don’t just go “hey this works so!” and leave it at that. We explain why something works. Evolution does this.

 

[Blacksword]

Planned and ordered it from the beginning - guess who thought that? Well now, our good friend St Augustine.

Did God know what Adam would look like?

Yes, and? What of it?

 

[buffalo]

Evolution IS adaptation. Viruses mutate because ALL life does so (we’ll bypass the interesting but irrelevant tangent as to whether viruses are “life” and assume for discussion they meet the standard). If “IDvolution” has testable, falsifiable truth claims I’m sure your theory will be making headway in academia in no time, and perhaps you’ll be in line for a Nobel Prize. If not, then it belongs in theology and philosophy classes perhaps (not that I’m denigrating either of those disciplines, I am a philosophy major, or was, as it were) but not in the science classroom.

Accidental discoveries still need explaining, and eventually are. We don’t just go “hey this works so!” and leave it at that. We explain why something works. Evolution does this.

You are the second person to mention the Nobel prize. Perhaps I should start the nomination process.

Evo doesn’t explain much at all. It is philosophy since it does not meet the empirical test, that is observable, repeatable and predictable.

Here are some side by side predictions of Intelligent Design (IDvolution is philosophy vs Intelligent Design, the science.)

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=11701

 

[buffalo]

Yes, and? What of it?

Did God look as God planned?

 

[Blacksword]

You are the second person to mention the Nobel prize. Perhaps I should start the nomination process.

Evo doesn’t explain much at all. It is philosophy since it does not meet the empirical test, that is observable, repeatable and predictable.

Here are some side by side predictions of Intelligent Design (IDvolution is philosophy vs Intelligent Design, the science.)

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=11701

Yes it is repeatable and observable, and has been shown as such in lab tests with fruit flies and such. The trouble then is that the goal posts are moved by creationists to draw a false distinction between “macro” and “micro” evolution.