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.
One of our beloved respondents brought up the subject of anthropological history before man. That invokes the concept of radiological dating. One of the main flaws of radiological dating is that there is no benchmark for how the world was at the beginning. In other words, we don’t know how much radiation existed at the beginning. The whole thing is based on a guess, because nobody was there to measure it at the beginning.

So dating things at millions and billions of years is based on the assumption that evolution would take millions and billions of years to occur. Therefore, “since we know it occurred”, this is how much radiation would be left after this length of time. The whole thing is a house of cards.

Speaking of houses of cards, the idea of natural selection is a meaningless tautology. Because of the following definitions:
Who survives? The fittest.
Who are the fittest? Those who survive.

May God bless all the contributors to this discussion for their civility and willingness to advance understanding of our origins. As for me, nothing I have heard contradicts young Earth creationism, as the evidence exists in the present, and Evolutionists and Creationists both observe the same evidence. Only the interpretation is different, due to the assumptions going in.
 
I am not a biologist or expert but I will do my best to answer. 🙂

Not quite, I think you misunderstand. A population is considered a new/separate species if they cannot reproduce with the original population. They must be capable of reproduction amongst themselves though. So mules are not a species bc they are sterile. The inability to reproduce with the original population is important to understanding speciation so I encourage you to read more about it or ask me for clarification. Also one thing to note is that this only applies to organisms that reproduce sexually.

Suggested reading: proof-of-evolution.com/faq-hybrid-sterility.html
Thanks for the help. This answers some.
If it is sterile, then by definition it cannot mate with the parent organism.
However, it also cannot mate at all.
Seems to me this is more of a dead end then of an evolutionary example.
The thing is though, one ought not to dismiss evolution just bc some of the evidence is lacking.
Indeed not.
But if the basic tenents on which the theory operates just do not work, then the theory carries no weight.
I understand how natural selection and random mutation appear to operate.
And I can see that it does cause adaptions.
But I do not see new species produced in labs.
If this theory really can explain, then it should be reproducable.
Thus far, I am not seeing it.
And my suspicians grow with each paper that comes out that plays fast and loose with the scientific method.
There is some very good information to be found on talkorigins but it is rather outdated it seems so Wikipedia may be a better source. (I know people give Wikipedia a lot of flack but I think it’s great, and you can always check the references or the talk page if you read something questionable.)
Plus, once your familiarize yourself with the basics from websites such as those, you can read the more reliable scholarly journals and know enough to understand what they’re talking about.

You could go to a natural history museum and see the evidence for yourself.
I have.
I remain doubtful that the currently accepted process of evolution is really how it all happened.
The certitude that I see scientists use when describing this theory annoys me a great deal. When it comes right down to it, there is a theory with some gaping holes that does not explain everything we see (although it does explain a lot).
Yet the scientific community has taken it up like a holy grail.
 
Hi, Samiam,

I apologize for my lack of clarity… my English could have been less ambiguous. Let me make the necessary changes:

Original:
Catholics believe that God took a direct hand the creation of man - making him into God’s Own Image. This did not happen via evolution or natural selection or the flip of a coin. But, this does not mean that God could not use any method He chose to get the universe to that sate of being before He acted on the creation of man.

Correction:
Catholics believe that God took a direct hand the creation of man - making him into God’s Own Image. This did not happen via evolution or natural selection or the flip of a coin as independent of God’s Will. But, this does **___ **mean that God ___________ _____________________ chose to get the universe to that sate of being before He acted on the creation of man. Everything depends on God’s Will - without this, there is nothing.

God bless
JPII disagrees with you:

“It can therefore be said that, from the viewpoint of the doctrine of the faith, there are no difficulties in explaining the origin of man in regard to the body, by means of the theory of evolution. But it must be added that this hypothesis proposes only a probability, not a scientific certainty. However, the doctrine of faith invariably affirms that man’s spiritual soul is created directly by God. According to the hypothesis mentioned, it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings. However, the human soul, on which man’s humanity definitively depends, cannot emerge from matter, since the soul is of a spiritual nature.”

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19860416en.html

So you see, when you say “God took a direct hand the creation of man - making him into God’s Own Image” your words are not wrong, but your understanding of them are (according to this encyclical). God took a direct hand in the creation of man’s soul not his body. Which really makes more sense if you think about it since God doesn’t have a physical image.
 
Thanks for the help. This answers some.If it is sterile, then by definition it cannot mate with the parent organism.However, it also cannot mate at all.Seems to me this is more of a dead end then of an evolutionary example.
Indeed not.But if the basic tenents on which the theory operates just do not work, then the theory carries no weight.
Mules are a dead end yeah but if you recall from that link, some hybrids are fertile. And some DO lead to new species! Check it out:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_speciation
I understand how natural selection and random mutation appear to operate.And I can see that it does cause adaptions.
That’s evolution hon. 🙂
But I do not see new species produced in labs.If this theory really can explain, then it should be reproducable.Thus far, I am not seeing it.
To see a REALLY dramatic change, you’d have to live for like, a million years. Plants and bacteria and boring stuff like that evolve fast enough for us to observe, but
like, it took 13,000+ years to go

from this



to this

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1405&pictureid=13123

and that was with humans pushing the process along! Imagine how long it takes without humans involved!
And my suspicians grow with each paper that comes out that plays fast and loose with the scientific method.
Maybe someone else can point you in the direction of some better quality research. I hope so, bc clearly you have an open mind to it and I don’t want it to close just cuz the examples I pointed you to were not up to par. 😊
As I said, I’m more into animals than plants and insects and stuff so I do not know what’s out there with regards to research other than what I showed you. For me, the fossil evidence and genetic studies and observed similarities in living animals are more than adequate to convince me, but some are not as easily convinced. 🙂
I have.I remain doubtful that the currently accepted process of evolution is really how it all happened.The certitude that I see scientists use when describing this theory annoys me a great deal. When it comes right down to it, there is a theory with some gaping holes that does not explain everything we see (although it does explain a lot).Yet the scientific community has taken it up like a holy grail.
As can be said with most theories, we go where the evidence takes us. Certain aspects are quite hole-y (hehe get it?) but so far, evolution through natural selection, common descent etc, is the best theory that fits the evidence.
 
Hi, Gcharles,

Sorry to be so late in responding to your post - I just saw it. 🙂

Besides being late with a response, I guess I am confused as to what you have said. The post announces that you are a Catholic - and, that has meaning for many people. While you really did not do justice to the Church’s teachings (humans did not do anything without the Power of God creating everything necessary to put His Plan into motion). Catholics believe that God took a direct hand the creation of man - making him into God’s Own Image. This did not happen via evolution or natural selection or the flip of a coin. But, this does not mean that God could not use any method He chose to get the universe to that sate of being before He acted on the creation of man. I am guessing that you knew this already … am I right?

Try not to base doctrinal statements on ‘feelings’ - most of the time they just turn out to be gas! Considering how this same Catholic Church stood up to the murderous persecutions of the Roman Empire - and today is standing up against the attack on Religious Liberty lead by the Obama Administration - I just do not see how you can honestly claim the Church of Christ is a coward. And, if there ever was cause to wonder about ‘political correctness’ maybe calling the Catholic Church names is a good example.

But, what is really troublesome is your comment on ‘water down’ gospel. Just how do you think the Bible got to us today if it were not for the Catholic Church? It woould appear that you are now in the business of interpreting Scripture for yourself. So, tell me, which Scriptural verse(s) specifically proclaims what you are claiming it says?

God bless
 
Sorry you didn’t realize I quoted from the bible. On day 6 when the Lord breathed life into Adam was he still a one celled organism. You should read information from the Kolbe Science center. Your answer is based on feelings. What else will you waterdown. You sound like a Jehovah Witness saying Jesus only appeared to die on the cross.He wasn’t in the flesh. Maybe you can tell me when Jesus gave life to man. Maybe you can tell me when the ape became a man was he alive? So the ape became a dead man and then the dead man Adam received life from the breath of God. Tell me how long did God have to wait for the ape to beome a man? I’m sure , since you know it all, we will answers soon. Paul told us that scripture is God-breathed.
 
Dogs can still mate with wolves.
And however far we have bred them, they still come out as canine.
I do not see this as an example of evolution.

But I understand some people do. So I guess I need to make the vocabulary more precise. Macro-evolution vs micro-evolution.

Your example above is an example of microevolution.
However, evolution as the theory is put forward is macroevolution.
 
As can be said with most theories, we go where the evidence takes us. Certain aspects are quite hole-y (hehe get it?) but so far, evolution through natural selection, common descent etc, is the best theory that fits the evidence.
I believe this particular of science to be similar to the astronomy studying the origin of it all.
They both are very incomplete, and have a gaping hole in them.

Until they address God, the theory will never be whole.

Perhaps that is where the controversy truly lies.
God played a major part. Evolutionary theory does not address this, and ends up with gaping holes and doubters like myself.
 
“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?
I quote Hercules’ name to invoke the moral truths in his myth. Does that mean I believe in a literal demi-god? Please, read my counters to Nec. You’re just parroting. People like to draw parallels between the the stories in the Bible and other myths. However, it’s quite startling that when junk like Zeitgeist try to do it for Jesus’ life, it’s a failure even for those who study comparative mythology. There are too many differences. On the other hand, there are more than a handful of parallels to the Great Flood.
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?
This is Jesus we’re talking here. Being God incarnate and forming the core component of our theology obviously puts him at a higher power level. If you were Jesus, I wouldn’t be surprised if you could pull a Bruce Almighty on me. On the other hand, if you were just some average schmoe who threatens to ask God to turn me into a goat, I’d ask for the number of your spiritual director.
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.
And these would be…? Beware of citing any degree that has to do with religion. It might actually discount you further.
If there is any let me know. If someone disagrees with Sacred Scripture you should thoroughly research, The challenge is on.
You know, it’s very unfair for you guys to make challenges like this when your take on Scripture literally believes in a giant, fire-breathing sea monster that sounds hard to kill even against the standards of modern, conventional weaponry.
If you believe that give me the empirical evidence. When you find there isn’t any then that evoution isn’t even a theory it is only based on a postulate. The wisdom of man is foolishness to God.
There is so much irony in someone wanting empirical evidence but can’t offer the same type of evidence for transmuting frogs out of river water.
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.
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.
Already heard this before. If anything, supernatural reality is supposed to be as distant and disconnected from our world as possible. Why do you think dabbling in the occult is forbidden? It’s because they’re nothing but foolish, superstitious, and weak attempts to bridge two realms that are supposed to be divided.
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).
You do realize that seeking supernatural experiences is not spiritually healthy behavior? Sometimes it’s even condemned! That tells you a lot about attributing too much of how our world works to the supernatural. I have long accepted that our world has always been this bland reality, ruled by restrictive principles that only guys with Einstein’s IQ could even try to manipulate and appreciate. It’s clear that the only truly supernatural events are a rarity because it’s God’s last-resort way of proving a point. I don’t see Him stooping that low just so we could keep having faith.

That’s why to say such things happened on a ridiculously regular basis (as described in the OT) is more of an insult than an affirmation to our faith.
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.
Again, if pagan sorcerers could have that kind of power, why aren’t they ruling the world? It’s only logical that if you could turn an entire water supply to blood, that would give you quite the military advantage. Don’t underestimate our kind’s capacity to weaponize power.

Oh and please, don’t give me the whole “Because God won’t allow it” argument. We believe in God, not some petty participant in the deity war trope that I often see in mythological fantasy.
 
Dogs can still mate with wolves.
And however far we have bred them, they still come out as canine.
I do not see this as an example of evolution.

But I understand some people do. So I guess I need to make the vocabulary more precise. Macro-evolution vs micro-evolution.

Your example above is an example of microevolution.
However, evolution as the theory is put forward is macroevolution.
These would be more of an example of adaptation through breeding.
 
JPII disagrees with you:

“It can therefore be said that, from the viewpoint of the doctrine of the faith, there are no difficulties in explaining the origin of man in regard to the body, by means of the theory of evolution. But it must be added that this hypothesis proposes only a probability, not a scientific certainty. However, the doctrine of faith invariably affirms that man’s spiritual soul is created directly by God. According to the hypothesis mentioned, it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings. However, the human soul, on which man’s humanity definitively depends, cannot emerge from matter, since the soul is of a spiritual nature.”

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19860416en.html

So you see, when you say “God took a direct hand the creation of man - making him into God’s Own Image” your words are not wrong, but your understanding of them are (according to this encyclical). God took a direct hand in the creation of man’s soul not his body. Which really makes more sense if you think about it since God doesn’t have a physical image.
My apology in advance for being cranky (feminine of snarky) as I am on a very non-friendly computer.

First. What was quoted is not from any encyclical. Far from it as light is from dark.
The quote is taken from a General Audience, April 16, 1986.
Notice that it says that " this hypothesis proposes only a probability, not a scientific certainty." Probability is one of the key words when it comes to natural science theories. Probability is a dang good guess, but it is not necessarily a scientific certainty.

Of course, there are no difficulties in using the theory of evolution to explain
the origin of man in regard to the body. Explanations are a dime a dozen. Notice the words “could have been” gradually prepared. Lots of things “could have been” done.

I986 --that is when the really interesting research on human origins became a popular battle cry. Apparently, John Paul II was aware of the trend when he deliberately and forcefully talked about the spiritual soul.

Speaking of encyclicals, there was one in 1950 which recognized where the current research was leading…
 
Dogs can still mate with wolves.
And however far we have bred them, they still come out as canine.
I do not see this as an example of evolution.
It wasn’t meant to be an example of macroevolution, it was meant to show you how long it takes for major changes to happen. 13,000 years for microevolution (though still a pretty dramatic change), so even longer for macro. More than your lifetime.
But I understand some people do. So I guess I need to make the vocabulary more precise. Macro-evolution vs micro-evolution.

Your example above is an example of microevolution.
However, evolution as the theory is put forward is macroevolution.
Nah, I knew what you meant. 🙂 But macroevolution happens when microevolution happens for a really long time.
I believe this particular of science to be similar to the astronomy studying the origin of it all.
They both are very incomplete, and have a gaping hole in them.

Until they address God, the theory will never be whole.

Perhaps that is where the controversy truly lies.
God played a major part. Evolutionary theory does not address this, and ends up with gaping holes and doubters like myself.
Stuff that happened in the past presents a special challenge to studying it.

That is true evolutionary theory and astronomy don’t address what role God had/has…how exactly would fossils and telescopes do that???

Science deals with the natural world, God is pretty much undetectable to scientific methods. God existing doesn’t mean evolution didn’t happen, and evolution happening doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist.
I am an atheist but that is because I do not see evidence of the supernatural, not because I believe the natural explains everything. I am okay with there being holes. If you want to fill those holes with God, go for it. 🙂
 
Hi, Gcharles,

You are really off on the wrong foot. You were the one claiming to be Catholic and then accusing the Catholic Church of ‘watering down’ the Gospel. Let’s get the facts straight: it is the Catholic Church that has been entrusted to interpret Scripture. My effort was to try and identify Chruch teaching. If I failed at giving an understandable explanation, well, I failed - but, this does not change the Chruch’s teaching. Catholics are free to believe any theory they wish about how humans got here - as long as: God is recognized as the ONLY moving force and that He took special consideration in making man.

I have no idea where you get the idea about a, ‘…one celled organism…’ but the Bible I use does not address that at all. Here is a link: usccb.org/bible/genesis/1 Your attention is directed to v26-27.

I notice you did not provide any links to the ‘Kolbe Science center’ - was there something you wanted to say about this group?

Actually my responses have been based on the teaching of the Catholic Church. Here is a link you may find of benefit: catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution.

The disparaging use of other religions to criticize or insult others is not allowed on CAF. You’re a new member and you may want to refresh yourself with the rules. Should you have any doubts about the accuracy of what I have just told you, simply as the Moderator.

The Creationist view (God made everything, earth <10,000 years old, etc) is an acceptable apprach according to the Catholic Church. The Atheistic view that there is no God and all that we see just happened is not acceptable to the Catholic Church. If God chose to take a long time to Work His Will then the billions and billions of years some agree with is acceptable as long as we recognize God as the source of all creation.

All Scripture is God breathed - and this is true. It does not, however, answer everything. The Catholic Church view Scirputre as one leg of a three-legged sturcture, with Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium being the other two. Here is a link that does a much better job of explaining this concept than I have provided: scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm

I trust I have not delayed in providing these answers.

God bless
Sorry you didn’t realize I quoted from the bible. On day 6 when the Lord breathed life into Adam was he still a one celled organism. You should read information from the Kolbe Science center. Your answer is based on feelings. What else will you waterdown. You sound like a Jehovah Witness saying Jesus only appeared to die on the cross.He wasn’t in the flesh. Maybe you can tell me when Jesus gave life to man. Maybe you can tell me when the ape became a man was he alive? So the ape became a dead man and then the dead man Adam received life from the breath of God. Tell me how long did God have to wait for the ape to beome a man? I’m sure , since you know it all, we will answers soon. Paul told us that scripture is God-breathed.
 
That’s a blog, not a scientific paper or news article about a scientific paper, you have all these citation numbers but no citations, and a trillion trillion isn’t very scientific sounding number, did you just make that up? Is that 10^24 cuz that is called a septillion.
It keeps mentioning Darwinian evolution but modern evolutionary synthesis is not synonymous with Darwinian evolution
:thumbs down:
 
That’s a blog, not a scientific paper or news article about a scientific paper, you have all these citation numbers but no citations, and a trillion trillion isn’t very scientific sounding number, did you just make that up? Is that 10^24 cuz that is called a septillion.
It keeps mentioning Darwinian evolution but modern evolutionary synthesis is not synonymous with Darwinian evolution
:thumbs down:
Nice try to discredit - the paper is referenced. Take a look at it.
 
How do people who don’t believe in evolution explain things like the vestigial bones in a dolphin’s or other cetacean’s skeleton that indicate their ancestors once had hind limbs? Do they think God put those things there to play a trick on humans?
 
How do people who don’t believe in evolution explain things like the vestigial bones in a dolphin’s or other cetacean’s skeleton that indicate their ancestors once had hind limbs? Do they think God put those things there to play a trick on humans?
Easy. I don’t.

Not much of a problem, I do not believe evolution explains these either.

Of course, what makes you think these pieces do not have a purpose exactly where and how they are?

Perhaps God is not playing a trick on us, but is instead presenting us with a problem to solve.
 
Nice try to discredit - the paper is referenced. Take a look at it.
oops I didn’t realize the title of the paper was actually a link to the paper. :o You should underline it so people know it’s a link haha. I will read it and get back to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top