One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
Ancient Chinese Characters
Click to expand...
My Critical Reading of the Slides:

    • Greek writing, I believe, predates Old Chinese, so Chinese is not the oldest, written language in the world (continuous maybe, but Sanskrit is another possibility), but even if it is, supposing I am wrong, the Epic of Gilgamesh predates it from the 18th century BCE. And how does “continuously” matter any?
    • The first recognizable form of Chinese writing dates from 3,500 years ago, not 4,500, though there is debate, but we have yet to conclusions on that as of yet.
    • Yes, it does seem that the common consensus is that writing in China evolved from earlier non-linguistic symbolic systems. While these pictograms are not truly Chinese characters, they do bear some resemblance to the earliest Chinese characters.
    • Shang Di - God of China - Creator God - Animal Sacrifices - SO?!
    • Similarities like that are supposed to translate as
      “This is the same God that Noah worshiped.”?
      • (Seems like the date
        of Buddhism entering
        China is disputed, but
        never mind that)
      • I totally can’t believe that the “God of the Bible,” if every present in China (though I’m sure he must have) was reintroduced to China by Europeans. It seems like Christians came to the Tang dynasty capital Xian in 635. Yes it does seem like Christianity was banned for a while, but I don’t think we ought to be crediting the Europeans for this “reintroduction to the God of the Bible” to China.
      • (Is there bias in this, or is it just me?)
      • The making of the Tower of Babel story as a literal history causes me some alarm. Biblical Bias? And if we were to assume that the "nations were scattered 5,000 years ago, AFTER the WORLD flood, where did the Native Americans come from? or the Native Australians? Sorry, no.
      HOWEVER, I would not be surprised if all those Character correlations just MIGHT be
      authentic, but I see no reason to believe in a literal world flood. There just isn’t enough
      sufficient geological evidence to support a flood of such immensity. Big Floods, YES,
      but no flood large enough to cover the whole world.

      I don’t even believe the Catholic Church supports the story as a 100% literal account, not speaking of individual Catholics, but the Church Herself as a whole.

      Amazing coincidences in the Chinese Characters,
      yes, perhaps indeed having something to do with
      a literal flood, but it may not be as the figurative
      language of the Bible says.

      I’ll even say it’s belief worthy (not for me), belief that something LIKE
      the Flood and Babel and etc happened, but no further evidence that
      anything EXACTLY like it happened like the Bible said it happened.
 
vz71 said:
You seem to have your mind set that God works through evolution.

So why fuss about someone else comparing how God works to artistry?
Click to expand...
My only audience is to Creationists who are deceived by Creationists propaganda.

If one is JUST a believer, fine, but if one is willing to do anything and everything to prove Genesis and the like as 100% literal, that causes me great concern.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
My only audience is to Creationists who are deceived by Creationists propaganda.

If one is JUST a believer, fine, but if one is willing to do anything and everything to prove Genesis and the like as 100% literal, that causes me great concern.
Click to expand...
So I am classified as such?
 
vz71 said:
I do not recall this in the definition you provided to narrow down what exactly a creationist is.

Could I get a revised definition of ‘creationist’ from you?
Click to expand...
That which you were talking about above your
reply was not my definition of Creation or part
of it, it’s just what they are known to do from
time to time.
 
vz71 said:
So I am classified as such?
Click to expand...
Well I don’t know. You’re the one with the ambiguous position right?

And do you JUST believe or do you try to convince yourself and/or
others that Genesis really is 100% literal, no allegory, no metaph-
or, no figurative language . . . etc?
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
My Critical Reading of the Slides:

I’ll even say it’s belief worthy (not for me), belief that something LIKE
the Flood and Babel and etc happened, but no further evidence that
anything EXACTLY like it happened like the Bible said it happened.
Click to expand...
The tower is also in the Book of Jubilees

The Tower of Babel and the Confusion of Tongues (x. 18-27; cf. Gen. xi. 1-9).
  1. And in the three and thirtieth jubilee, in the first year in the second week, Peleg took to himself a wife, whose name was Lômnâ the daughter of Sînâ’ar, and she bare him a son in the fourth year of this week, and he called his name Reu; 2 for he said: “Behold the children of men have become evil 3 through the wicked purpose of building for themselves a city and a tower in the land of Shinar.” 19. For they departed from the land of Ararat eastward to Shinar; for in his days they built the city and the tower, saying, “Go to, let us ascend thereby into heaven.” 4 20. And they began to build, and in the fourth week they made brick with fire, and the bricks served them for stone, and the clay 5 with which they cemented them together was asphalt which cometh out of the sea, and out of the fountains of water in the land of Shinar. 21. And they built it: forty and three years were they building it; its
    1645-1688 A.M.
p. 82
breadth was 203 bricks, and the height (of a brick) was the third of one; its height amounted to 5433 cubits and 2 palms, and (the extent of one wall was) thirteen stades (and of the other thirty stades). 22. And the Lord our God said unto us: “Behold, they are one people, and (this) they begin to do, and now nothing will be withholden from them. Go to, let us go down and confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech, 1 and they may be dispersed into cities and nations, and one purpose will no longer abide with them till the day of judgment.” 23. And the Lord descended, and we descended with Him to see the city and the tower which the children of men had built. 24. And He confounded their language, and they no longer understood one another’s speech, and they ceased then to build the city and the tower. 25. For this reason the whole land of Shinar is called Babel, because the Lord did there confound all the language of the children of men, and from thence they were dispersed 2 into their cities, each according to his language and his nation. 3 26. And the Lord sent a mighty wind 4 against the tower and overthrew it upon the earth, and behold it was between Asshur and Babylon in the land of Shinar, and they called its name
1688 A.M. “Overthrow.” 5 27. In the fourth week in the first year in the beginning thereof in the four and thirtieth jubilee, were they dispersed from the land of Shinar.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
My only audience is to Creationists who are deceived by Creationists propaganda.

If one is JUST a believer, fine, but if one is willing to do anything and everything to prove Genesis and the like as 100% literal, that causes me great concern.
Click to expand...
Catholics do not believe it to be 100% literal.
 
vz71 said:
Do you propose that there is no design in the sun?

How could this all be a creation of God’s without some kind of design throughout?

Is it proposed that God simply threw creation together without planning.
Click to expand...
There are rules that govern the interaction of subatomic particles and that is what physicists study. These rules can be experimentally tested. By understanding these rules, the mechanism from which the sun creates energy can be understood.

Physicists don’t make any proposal to where those rules came from since it cannot be experimentally tested.

This is now the realm of the philosopher and the theologian.

Intelligent Design is philosophy. It’s not experimentally testable and it makes no predictions, hence it is not a science.
 
Wish I could measure it to see how it lines up with Jubilees dimensions.

 
Crossbones said:
There are rules that govern the interaction of subatomic particles and that is what physicists study. These rules can be experimentally tested. By understanding these rules, the mechanism from which the sun creates energy can be understood.

Physicists don’t make any proposal to where those rules came from since it cannot be experimentally tested.

This is now the realm of the philosopher and the theologian.

Intelligent Design is philosophy. It’s not experimentally testable and it makes no predictions, hence it is not a science.
Click to expand...
Predictions of ID.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=11701
 
Crossbones said:
There are rules that govern the interaction of subatomic particles and that is what physicists study. These rules can be experimentally tested. By understanding these rules, the mechanism from which the sun creates energy can be understood.

Physicists don’t make any proposal to where those rules came from since it cannot be experimentally tested.

This is now the realm of the philosopher and the theologian.

Intelligent Design is philosophy. It’s not experimentally testable and it makes no predictions, hence it is not a science.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm. Except quantum physics says the sun is manifested by an observer/mind. It also has done away with materialism and that we actually live in a virtual world started and maintained by a mind.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
That which you were talking about above your
reply was not my definition of Creation or part
of it, it’s just what they are known to do from
time to time.
Click to expand...
Then you agree that what you accuse Creationists of is actually a trait shared by all sides of the argument.
 
The nylon-eating bacteria experiment IS proof of species changing into another species. Google it. Or were you expecting me to somehow digitally upload bacteria to the internet for you to look at? As the saying goes, you can guide a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink it. I told you where to look. You have to be the one to actually look. I can’t do that for you.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t verify evolution by a long-shot.
 
buffalo said:
Hmmmm. Except quantum physics says the sun is manifested by an observer/mind. It also has done away with materialism and that we actually live in a virtual world started and maintained by a mind.
Click to expand...
Nope - you’re mixing up the philosopher’s view of quantum mechanics with the physicists.
 
I’m having trouble understanding how Catholics can be so critical of Creationists. The only think I can even come up with to remotely excuse that is how we define Creationist.

When I say Creationist, I’m talking about Intelligent Design, that we just didn’t come from random nothingness. I am not talking about fundamental Protestants who have to take the Bible literally word for word and think the Earth was created in 6 days and is 6000 years old.

I’m staring to get the sense that too much else is surfacing when evolution is discussed.

There is no room for bad motives in sound science, nor is there room for emotion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top