One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Farsight001]

Well, the part in quotes wasn’t meant literally. It just refers to transitional forms that would be so obvious that even the most hardened skeptic couldn’t deny them. There DOES seem to be a shortage of THAT sort of “transitional form.”

In what way? Your comment reminded me of this episode of Futurama about evolution, in particular, this clip: youtube.com/watch?v=RxrxnPG05SU

I apologize for the quality, but the episode has a lot of creationist mocking in it, and this is the only one I could find with this specific part, sans the mockery. I also want to illustrate that unlike other cartoons, Futurama prides itself on some modicum of accuracy (as much as they can in a cartoon about the future, of course) - every species named, as well as the drawings of other species displayed are quite real. There are that many forms.

I also wanted to ask - what do you mean by a “transitional form that even the most hardened of skeptic couldn’t deny”? In my experience, the most hardened skeptic actually believes fossils were planted by the devil to trick us and aren’t real animals. What I’m saying is we might have a different definition of hardened skeptic. Do you think you could give an example of such a transitional form?

 

[Farsight001]

My 2-cents. :twocents:

I believe in a combination of evolution and creationism. The theory - and it is just a theory - of evolution only explains how things changed over time. It does not answer the question of how it all began.

There is plenty of scientific evidence to support the idea than man’s ancestors go back much further than 6000 BC which is more or less when Genesis is supposed to have happened. If the Adam and Eve story is true, it may be the first *recorded *incidence of man and woman, but not necessarily the first man and woman.

And to elaborate, according to Catholic teaching, Adam and Eve were the first with eternal souls. Also, what you are espousing is what is called theistic evolution.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

And to elaborate, according to Catholic teaching, Adam and Eve were the first with eternal souls. Also, what you are espousing is what is called theistic evolution.

So you are suggesting that, for example, Cro-Magnon man had no soul?

 

[Farsight001]

So you are suggesting that, for example, Cro-Magnon man had no soul?

Don’t know where Adam and eve came about, but if they came about after that point, then yes, he had no eternal soul, though perhaps a temporal one, just like chimps and dogs and such. And that’s not me suggesting this. That’s the Church.

 

[Dawnia]

And to elaborate, according to Catholic teaching, Adam and Eve were the first with eternal souls. Also, what you are espousing is what is called theistic evolution.

You seem rather invested in your opinion that evolution is the only explanation. What if you’re wrong?

The thing I know about science is that you can’t trust that what you know today won’t be disproven tomorrow.

 

[vz71]

Thought what?!

Dude, I was not playing a game to avoid answering your question. I am not some evil evolution proponent looking to deceive and trick you in any way possible. I really didn’t know what you were referring to and REALLY was asking you to be more specific so I could answer your question. Exactly what are you looking for proof of?

I asked for specifics from a post that I quoted that was less then 10 sentences long and listed fewer than five ‘proofs’
And in spite of quoting the exceptionally short post, some can’t seem to figure out what I was asking.

I find evasion to be a better explanation than ignorance or laziness.

 

[Monkey1976]

Don’t know where Adam and eve came about, but if they came about after that point, then yes, he had no eternal soul, though perhaps a temporal one, just like chimps and dogs and such. And that’s not me suggesting this. That’s the Church.

I agree with this explanation, because it also handily deals with the “Cain’s wife” issue without having to resort to incest. Cain - as a child of Adam and Eve - would have had an eternal soul, while his wife would not have. Any children they had would have “inherited” an eternal soul from Cain, and so on down the line.

An interesting aside: One possible translation of “Adam” is “Man of the red earth”. The most ancient human population still in existence is the San bushmen of the Kalahari desert. The region in which they live is particularly notable for the deep red color of the dirt.

 

[edwest2]

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Farsight001]

You seem rather invested in your opinion that evolution is the only explanation. What if you’re wrong?

The thing I know about science is that you can’t trust that what you know today won’t be disproven tomorrow.

considering that i have personally observed with my own eyes the process of evolution occurring, I know I am not wrong and I know it is not an opinion. Unless of course we want to get all Descartes-ian with each other.

Some things in science can be disproven, yes. But the stuff that’s been directly observed? Nope. We can measure tectonic plate movement with high-precision gps. Nothing we ever do is going to prove that tectonic plates don’t move. Their movement has been directly observed. Same with evolution. Science can no more disprove it than they can disprove that wheels roll.

 

[Farsight001]

I asked for specifics from a post that I quoted that was less then 10 sentences long and listed fewer than five ‘proofs’
And in spite of quoting the exceptionally short post, some can’t seem to figure out what I was asking.

I find evasion to be a better explanation than ignorance or laziness.

As you said, it had more than 1 proof, and more than one sentence. Which “proof” did you want me to address? And which sentence was it in? I really don’t know what you want because I truly don’t know what you’re talking about, and I would appreciate it if you stop assuming that I’m being ignorant, lazy, or evasive and dishonest. That’s really rude. Just elaborate and we can get on with it.

 

[Farsight001]

I agree with this explanation, because it also handily deals with the “Cain’s wife” issue without having to resort to incest. Cain - as a child of Adam and Eve - would have had an eternal soul, while his wife would not have. Any children they had would have “inherited” an eternal soul from Cain, and so on down the line.

Meh. I always thought about the Cain’s wife issue who’s to say that God didn’t create other people and Cain married one of them? Just because its not mentioned that that happened doesn’t mean it didn’t. Lots of women are not mentioned in the bible who we know existed. It was the culture of the time.

 

[Dawnia]

considering that i have personally observed with my own eyes the process of evolution occurring, I know I am not wrong and I know it is not an opinion. Unless of course we want to get all Descartes-ian with each other.

Some things in science can be disproven, yes. But the stuff that’s been directly observed? Nope. We can measure tectonic plate movement with high-precision gps. Nothing we ever do is going to prove that tectonic plates don’t move. Their movement has been directly observed. Same with evolution. Science can no more disprove it than they can disprove that wheels roll.

Well good luck with that. I personally don’t care one way or the other, because true or not it doesn’t change a thing.

I can tell you from personal experience that flat tires do indeed not roll.

 

[Farsight001]

Well good luck with that. I personally don’t care one way or the other, because true or not it doesn’t change a thing.

Oh it changes a lot. The more people who accept it, the more likely people are to study science, the more funding science gets, the more scientific advancements we get, the better we advance as a country and as a planet, the better off we are economically and medically. Did you know that a couple of years ago two men won a Nobel prize for inventing a technique to turn adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells so that the destruction of embryos is no longer necessary? That’s AMAZING! and great for babies, and without good science funding it never would have been possible.

I can tell you from personal experience that flat tires do indeed not roll.

Flat tires aren’t wheels. And you know what I meant.

 

[edwest2]

the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16649/title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin-/

Peace,
Ed

 

[vz71]

As you said, it had more than 1 proof, and more than one sentence. Which “proof” did you want me to address? And which sentence was it in? I really don’t know what you want because I truly don’t know what you’re talking about, and I would appreciate it if you stop assuming that I’m being ignorant, lazy, or evasive and dishonest. That’s really rude. Just elaborate and we can get on with it.

How about all of the proofs mentioned.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

How about all of the proofs mentioned.

Here is one good video:youtube.com/watch?v=1jkGoqO0sZg

 

[RACJ]

I am a proud believer in ID. Frankly, I think that the percentage of folks who doubt or outright reject evolution is MUCH higher than one third. I find that when I scratch the surface of most people who say they believe in evolution, they quickly realize that they don’t have an answers for questions that I pose to them. Rob

 

[RACJ]

Much of the current thinking in evolutionary theory takes into account the lack of “transitional forms,” and postulates more drastic transitions, if I’m not mistaken.

Stephen Jay Gould came to realize the near impossiblity of a slow aggregate of billions of mutations, nearly all of them ehancing the chances of species’ survival, so he invented “punctuated equilibrium”, which posits that there are periods of slow, imperceptible evolutionary mutations, (such as exists today), followed by massive bursts of evolution. To me, this idea is nonsense borne of naturalists’ inability to explain the paucity of transitional forms. Rob

 

[RACJ]

If you reject evolution, you must do so purely from the physical evidence and not from any religious perspectives. Many reject Evolution because they say it contradicts our faith, but the Church starting with Pius XII has said many times that this is not the case. So if you continue to say that Evolution is incompatible with our faith, you are contradicting Pius XII and others. You can’t pull all the strings to show evolution is against our faith when the several Pope’s have said it is not, within the range of certain enumerated conditions.

Indeed, it is lack of plausible physical evidence and experimentation that leads millions of people to reject TOE. Just as with those enviro-scientists stuck in Antarctic ice while trying to research the melting of the polar cap, evolutionists are trapped by evidence contrary to their strident world-views. Blessings, Rob

 

[Dawnia]

Oh it changes a lot. The more people who accept it, the more likely people are to study science, the more funding science gets, the more scientific advancements we get, the better we advance as a country and as a planet, the better off we are economically and medically. Did you know that a couple of years ago two men won a Nobel prize for inventing a technique to turn adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells so that the destruction of embryos is no longer necessary? That’s AMAZING! and great for babies, and without good science funding it never would have been possible.

Well good luck with your crusade to convert the unbelievers.