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

[Not_Sure_1]

I agree that Evangelical Protestant ideas are infultrating some elements of American Catholic thought in the laity.

I believe this started with the Religious Right and it’s marrying with the GOP in the 90’s (Cristian Coalition, Focus on the Family etc.). Those politically conservative Catholics started to see things they liked about low church Protestantism including a simpler method of reading the Bible, and here we are.

Just because I believe in Creationism, that means I’m drinking from the Protestant kool-aid?
Thanks a lot

 

[vz71]

Just because I believe in Creationism, that means I’m drinking from the Protestant kool-aid?
Thanks a lot

I imagine that depends on the nuances in said belief.

 

[ringil]

I imagine that depends on the nuances in said belief.

And where one looks for support of their position. Does one find support in non-Catholic sources?

I can’t think that any seminary would teach a 6000-1000 year old Earth and a creation story literally taking as historical fact from Genesis.

I certainly can’t think of any Catholic biblical scholars pressing this stuff but low-church Protestantism is riffe with these kinds of ideas.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Chapter? Verse? and Proof that no such could have been or ever was?

I already cited to you a passage from Job. You barely followed up on that. You want me to cite the whole of the Ten Plagues too? I’d wager you wouldn’t respond.

And as I’ve stated long ago in this thread, the proof lies in the laws governing our reality since God created it. I refuse to believe that He changed it halfway for some absurd reason. What comes up must come down. The chemical components of water don’t just suddenly become that of blood. Neither does it suddenly become legs, warts, and an entire mass of frogs. Solid wood doesn’t have the capacity to develop organs, scales, and snake fangs (then turning back).

I have your heaps. It’s clear you just think they’re heaps and turn a blind eye once they’re right in front of you. If you want to stick your head in the sand, be my guest but don’t mislead other people that I haven’t provided enough proof.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Are you saying that the literalist delusion, as you have described as regarding real monsters, are now in manga form?

No. Just comic book form.

I have not had time to review current Jack Chick activity. The last time I saw a tract, it was specific anti-Catholic regarding the Eucharist.

You should see his tracts and rants against evolution.

Our worthwhile discussion brings to mind some of the “adult” American animated TV shows which make fun of Catholicism. My kids won’t let me watch them if we are surfing channels. But as soon as I leave the room, you can guess which cartoon goes back on the screen.

Well, I’m not making fun of Catholicism. I’m making fun of Bible literalism that’s posing as Catholicism. You said yourself that the existence of Adam and Eve don’t depend on a literal Noah’s Ark, a literal Ten Plagues, or a Literal Behemoth and Leviathan.

But alas, literal Creationists would tell you otherwise… for one obscure reason or another.

I am beginning to follow the connection of the 46% creationist view with what you are seeing happening in the Philippines. Am I close to being right?

A slight correction, it’s not really ‘happening’ here. I’m just pointing out that fringe fundamentalists aren’t far from influencing the less educated of my country’s society. In my very first post, all I’ve been saying is that the spectrum of between so-called ‘Creationism’ and Evolution is a sham.

I repeat: It’s either you’re a Bible literalist or you’re not.

 

[Robertanthony]

I already cited to you a passage from Job. You barely followed up on that. You want me to cite the whole of the Ten Plagues too? I’d wager you wouldn’t respond.

And as I’ve stated long ago in this thread, the proof lies in the laws governing our reality since God created it. I refuse to believe that He changed it halfway for some absurd reason. What comes up must come down. The chemical components of water don’t just suddenly become that of blood. Neither does it suddenly become legs, warts, and an entire mass of frogs. Solid wood doesn’t have the capacity to develop organs, scales, and snake fangs (then turning back).

I have your heaps. It’s clear you just think they’re heaps and turn a blind eye once they’re right in front of you.** If you want to stick your head in the sand, be my guest **but don’t mislead other people that I haven’t provided enough proof.

There’s lots of sand where you live? Oh you didn’t mean that literally, did you?

 

[vz71]

I already cited to you a passage from Job. You barely followed up on that. You want me to cite the whole of the Ten Plagues too? I’d wager you wouldn’t respond.

You remember that. Great! I was thinking you were simply ducking the question.

So is it your contention that such as is mentioned in Job could never have been?
What proof do you bring to the table of their non-existence?

As to the plagues…same issue.

People scoff and roll their eyes, but they cannot prove anything did not happen.
Instead, they launch into ridicule of those that believe otherwise.

I happen to believe all 10 plagues were real.

 

[Robertanthony]

You remember that. Great! I was thinking you were simply ducking the question.

So is it your contention that such as is mentioned in Job could never have been?
What proof do you bring to the table of their non-existence?

As to the plagues…same issue.

People scoff and roll their eyes, but they cannot prove anything did not happen.
Instead, they launch into ridicule of those that believe otherwise.

I happen to believe all 10 plagues were real.

Nothing is impossible to God, he could have made the whole universe in 6 literal days, he could have made the first man out of dirt, but given that much of the Bible is not a historical account, we’ll never know for sure what is literal and what is not. So Lost Wanderer could say that Moses did not really part the Red Sea, you could say he did, neither of you can prove it one way or the other, unless you find reliable writings from an Egyptian historian who lived in those days and interviewed direct witnesses.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Savedwretch,

Welcome to CAF

Yes, it would appear that Christ took information directly from Genesis and used it to defeat the Sadduces in their attempt to discredit Christ. Notice, He clearly states that God is responsible for all of creation and that He paid ‘special attention’ in all that was done (creating male and female humans who would marry). But, I submit that such a statement (and Creation) does not necessarily mean that this took place in a 24/6 time frame. The idea is that God could have used a very long time period (say… 14 billion years or so…) to accomplish this creation of male and female humans who would then marry.

Nothing in this doubts or challenges that Jesus is in fact, Lord of all. And, I think this is the real message. Whatever actually took place and over what time period - the understanding is that we look to God as the Author of Creation.

Now, I means this as a form of honest inquiry: if the Genesis account of Creation (Six-24 hour days and then a Day or Rest) is to be taken literally … OK - let’s go for it. But, then when we look at John 6 and say that Catholics believe Christ literally means for us to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood - it has been my experience that most Protestants say, “Oh, He was just being metaphorical - He could not possibly mean for us to do that!” Truly, there seems to be a double standard in place. What do you think?

God bless

It is a matter of scriptural authority. Who’s word do you believe, God’s or sinful man? If you don’t believe God’s word, then why do you call yourself a Christian?

The Lord Jesus quotes from Genesis in Matthew 19:4-5, “And He answered and said to them, 'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female’, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh’?”

The Lord Jesus quoting Genesis as truth should be more than enough for anyone who believes Jesus is Lord of all. He should know those words are true since all of God’s word is His word, since He is God.

The logical point being, if you believe Jesus is God and that He is the truth, and He quoted Genesis as true (early Genesis at that), then if you’re a Christian you should also believe that Genesis is true. Why wouldn’t you except that you’re afraid of what sinful man might think of you.

 

[grannymh]

I repeat: It’s either you’re a Bible literalist or you’re not.

Since I have not read the entire Bible, this requirement of yours makes it impossible to discuss the first three chapters of Genesis (origin of human nature as in OP). It also dismisses my interest in the value of the poll when one considers the doctrines of the Catholic Church regarding the first real human which are often not part of creationism.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

So is it your contention that such as is mentioned in Job could never have been?
What proof do you bring to the table of their non-existence?

Again, the absence of cities destroyed in their wake. I said this before. I remember you having no response to that either.

What? You thought I was kidding about trashing cities? If you’re gonna believe in a monster, it should be a MONSTER.

http://bookraptor.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/godzilla98b.jpg

It should be powerful.
It should be unstoppable.
It should be HUGE!

The passages of Job describe creatures that cannot be killed even by our own modern conventional weaponry. Yet here you are, claiming that they exist and ruling anything that obviously indicates otherwise as ‘ridicule’.

Look contrary to what the martyrs will say, a persecution complex is not healthy doesn’t justify anything (logically or otherwise).

As to the plagues…same issue.

I happen to believe all 10 plagues were real.

Yeah sure. Come back to me when you found a neo-pagan worshipper of the Egyptian gods who can turn water into either frogs or blood. I’m sure the likes of the Amazing Randi would love to give him/her a nice, fat cash prize.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

So Lost Wanderer could say that Moses did not really part the Red Sea, you could say he did, neither of you can prove it one way or the other, unless you find reliable writings from an Egyptian historian who lived in those days and interviewed direct witnesses.

Take note, God wasn’t the only being who was said to demonstrate supernatural power. Remember, turning staves into serpents, water into blood, and summoning frogs out of river muck were all wonders also replicated by Egyptian sorcerers.

Therefore, even the argument of God can do anything doesn’t hold that much water. If Egyptian sorcerers could really do even one plague, why didn’t they use such power to conquer their enemies?

Imagine, turning the entire world’s water supply into blood. Think of the disaster that would result from weaponizing that power.

Heck, if I could literally transmute a staff into a snake, I’d be less inclined to learn martial arts.

 

[vz71]

So Lost Wanderer could say that Moses did not really part the Red Sea, you could say he did, neither of you can prove it one way or the other, unless you find reliable writings from an Egyptian historian who lived in those days and interviewed direct witnesses.

True. But I am not going to roll my eyes and scoff at those that believe otherwise.

 

[vz71]

Again, the absence of cities destroyed in their wake. I said this before. I remember you having no response to that either.

It should be powerful.
It should be unstoppable.
It should be HUGE!

The passages of Job describe creatures that cannot be killed even by our own modern conventional weaponry. Yet here you are, claiming that they exist and ruling anything that obviously indicates otherwise as ‘ridicule’.

Here I am asking your proof.
I have claimed nothing of belief in the stories of job one way or the other.
I am simply asking your proof.

You scoff at others for a belief…PROVE IT WRONG.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Here I am asking your proof.
I have claimed nothing of belief in the stories of job one way or the other.
I am simply asking your proof.

You scoff at others for a belief…PROVE IT WRONG.

I already did. I have cited time and again how it is impossible for reality to bend to the whims of religious myth. I have shown my right to scoff. You cannot produce blood from water, no matter how hard you pray. Water is H2O. Blood is a mixture of even more chemical compounds.

My evidence is the very force that keeps you rooted to the ground, binds the molecules of your little PC, and governs the flow of your blood.

It’s called science.

It’s called reality.

I suggest you wake up to it.

If you’re so desperate for proof, open any high school physics/chemistry/biology book instead of the Bible.

 

[vz71]

I already did. I have cited time and again how it is impossible for reality to bend to the whims of religious myth. I have shown my right to scoff. You cannot produce blood from water, no matter how hard you pray. The evidence is the very force that keeps you rooted to the ground, binds the molecules of your little PC, and governs the flow of your blood.

It’s called science.

It’s called reality.

I suggest you wake up to it.

If you’re so desperate for proof, open any high school physics/chemistry/biology book instead of the Bible.

Lack of ability to prove it has been noted.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Lack of ability to prove it has been noted.

Lack of ability to face facts has been demonstrated.

I remember a question in Yahoo! Answers once that asked the definition of a Christian. One non-believer replied.

“covers ears LALALALALAH! IMMA CHRISTIAN LALALALA!”

Normally, defenders of the faith would call that a strawman but it’s quite sad when one of their own actually bears quite the resemblance to it.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

From Wikipedia:

The average adult has a blood volume of roughly 5 liters (1.3 gal), composed of plasma and several kinds of cells (occasionally called corpuscles); these formed elements of the blood are erythrocytes (red blood cells, RBCs), leukocytes (white blood cells), and thrombocytes (platelets). By volume, the red blood cells constitute about 45% of whole blood, the plasma about 54.3%, and white cells about 0.7%.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood#Constituents_of_human_blood

Water is a chemical substance with the chemical formula H2O. A water molecule contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms connected by covalent bonds.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Here’s a few more tidbits on those of you who believe in giant monsters.

Apex predators (also known as alpha, super, top- or top-level predators) are predators with no predators of their own, residing at the top of their food chain. Zoologists define predation as the killing and consumption of another organism (which generally excludes parasites and most bacteria). In this context, “apex predator” is usually defined in terms of trophic dynamics. Apex predator species occupy the highest trophic level(s) and have a crucial role in maintaining the health of their ecosystems.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_predator

Seeing as how we’re the dominant species of this planet and aren’t constantly in fear of each other more than wild animals, I’d say the idea of an apex predator that surpasses our ingenuity with modern firearms and what have you would fit Leviathan perfectly.

Now… why is the world still full of urban jungles and not little fishing villages constantly in fear of the next sea monster attack? You’d think all the armies in the world would be up in arms hunting monsters like that down (and failing miserably of course).

 

[vz71]

Lack of ability to face facts has been demonstrated.

You really cannot say that unless facts have been brought to the table.

So far we have your insistance that things never happened and your scoffing those that believe otherwise.

Yet you have not provided a shred of proof that such never was.