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

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by OldCorp

 

Care to summarize the book? I agree that some observations of the Universe are very difficult to comprehend, e.g. order arising from chaos. Indeed such things could in theory even imply some form of intelligence behind the design. Nonetheless, under no circumstances does this kind of stuff support the existence of some personal superhero magic God like Allah, Shiva, or the angry genocide God of the Bible.

you're right, ever since i became self-aware with the ability to think logically, i could never understand a "GOD" being "angry" or "jealous" or "vindictive"...why would anyone desire to worship something like that? how can I, as a human, have more compassion for my fellow man then a "GOD" does?

Originally posted by Apheon
What the difference between a Theory and Blind Faith?

Blind faith is blind faith. Theories are based on observations and induction and require only understanding. No blind faith needed. That's the difference.

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by RicoMarston

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Covertblack
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

It is the continuous finding of transitional fossils. We keep finding small bits and pieces, and like to believe that a lower species evolved into us, but finding of the records had gaps last I heard.

What is a "lower species"?

Sorry for the poor wording. A less evolved species. At least as human beings concern ourselves as.

less evolved? where was it proven or even suggested that man is the "most evolved?" evolution, and life in general, is not a straight line of progress from 1 to 10. one species a long time ago branched off into two or more separate species and then died out as the new species continued to evolve. We probably came from a very low population species which was concentrated in one area. that would explain why it's so hard to find this missing link. but again, that term leads one to believe that it is a chain, link after link, from past to present. evolution moves in fits and starts, sometimes even backtracking on itself.

Why I said as human beings are concerned. As far as intelligence aren't we the most evolved?

ah, now I get it. yeah, i would assume by most reasonable estimates, we are the most intelligent species currently on the planet. but that doesn't really mean that our brains or consciousness is any *more* evolved, just that we evolved to work more efficiently. it could have happened really fast or over a huge period of time.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Apheon
What the difference between a Theory and Blind Faith?

Blind faith is blind faith. Theories are based on observations and induction and require only understanding. No blind faith needed. That's the difference.

Would you have believed atoms existed before we were able to view them?

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Covertblack
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Once a species evolves it has since changed itself for the better, no? Thus holding an edge in being able to survive where as the others are eradicated out by natural selection.

Only the most suited to given environment continue the species, and thus over generations, by natural selection, the species becomes better adopted to its specific environment. This does not mean that it's better like you put it. Environments don't remain constant.

Ah, but we adapted to many different environments that we are not suited to be in. Intelligence let us conquer that which we were not suited for.

So by this logic the fungus Pleurotus ostreatus is the most evolved multicellular animal on Earth since it inhabits every continent other than Antarctica and doesn't even require any tools to do so? But then, some bacterial species are even more evolved since they're present almost everywhere..

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Apheon
What the difference between a Theory and Blind Faith?

Blind faith is blind faith. Theories are based on observations and induction and require only understanding. No blind faith needed. That's the difference.

Would you have believed atoms existed before we were able to view them?

Depends on what the literature on atoms was like at the time. Direct observations are not always possible, and induction is needed. If the evidence was good enough and I had evaluated it, then yes, maybe. Wouldn't have been blind faith since the evidence was there

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Apheon
What the difference between a Theory and Blind Faith?

Blind faith is blind faith. Theories are based on observations and induction and require only understanding. No blind faith needed. That's the difference.

Would you have believed atoms existed before we were able to view them?

Depends on what the literature on atoms was like at the time. Direct observations are not always possible, and induction is needed. If the evidence was good enough and I had evaluated it, then yes, maybe. Wouldn't have been blind faith since the evidence was there

I agree, but it was still a leap of faith back then. They had an idea that they existed but it couldn't be proven until later.

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Apheon
What the difference between a Theory and Blind Faith?

Blind faith is blind faith. Theories are based on observations and induction and require only understanding. No blind faith needed. That's the difference.

Would you have believed atoms existed before we were able to view them?

Depends on what the literature on atoms was like at the time. Direct observations are not always possible, and induction is needed. If the evidence was good enough and I had evaluated it, then yes, maybe. Wouldn't have been blind faith since the evidence was there

I agree, but it was still a leap of faith back then. They had an idea that they existed but it couldn't be proven until later.

It's not the same than blind faith.

Originally posted by Lionhearte

Originally posted by CB328
Because those god believing people oppress and kill everyone else.

Yet the Bible, God's word, clearly dictates not to murder someone. If these "god believing people" actually knew the truth, and that no one yet a perfect being has the authority to condemn and judge, then they wouldn't be doing this.

My God tells those who want to stone the adulterers, the homosexuals, the murderers, the slanderers, the drunkards, etc, that "he who is without sin may cast the first stone" - none of us have the right to judge or condemn, but God alone-

And what does God say, to the adulterer, whom they tried to stone?

John 8:10-11

10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11 "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

He is unwilling that any should perish.

If the bible is gods words then so is the quran and buddhas teaching and so is any other book created by man because they where created by man that was created by god. That does not mean it is the best book to give you wisdom and teach you how to open the connection within you.

But still some of the so called "Christians" seem to say Homosexuallity is a sin and preach that it is a sin. It is enought to say it is a sin to judge (throwing mental stones of hate). That is not loving your neighbour (methaphoricly not physicly).

The bible is a book with spiritual knowledge that can give wisdom fi you know how to seek it. But there are better books that explain droping duality views and ego and turing the connection on and reviving the holy spirit than the bible. Just because some people think it is the way does not mean it is the most effective way. The bible is a very interesting read with my viewpoint of what god is, i am and what satan is. Especialy Jesus message comes very alive but then I had the same wow feeling when reading Buddha. 2 of the messangers of the same source.

Jesus preaches more love while buddha preaches more control and how to evolve/change.Love and logic. Both right brain and left brain. When they are as one remarkable things can happen.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Covertblack
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Once a species evolves it has since changed itself for the better, no? Thus holding an edge in being able to survive where as the others are eradicated out by natural selection.

Only the most suited to given environment continue the species, and thus over generations, by natural selection, the species becomes better adopted to its specific environment. This does not mean that it's better like you put it. Environments don't remain constant.

Ah, but we adapted to many different environments that we are not suited to be in. Intelligence let us conquer that which we were not suited for.

So by this logic the fungus Pleurotus ostreatus is the most evolved multicellular animal on Earth since it inhabits every continent other than Antarctica and doesn't even require any tools to do so? But then, some bacterial species are even more evolved since they're present almost everywhere..

As far as humanoids are concerned. If we weren't the better, should I say best model, the others would still be around.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Apheon
What the difference between a Theory and Blind Faith?

Blind faith is blind faith. Theories are based on observations and induction and require only understanding. No blind faith needed. That's the difference.

Would you have believed atoms existed before we were able to view them?

Depends on what the literature on atoms was like at the time. Direct observations are not always possible, and induction is needed. If the evidence was good enough and I had evaluated it, then yes, maybe. Wouldn't have been blind faith since the evidence was there

I agree, but it was still a leap of faith back then. They had an idea that they existed but it couldn't be proven until later.

It's not the same than blind faith.

I agree, but it took faith none the less.

Originally posted by HamrHeed

Originally posted by OldCorp

Originally posted by olaru12
reply to post by blackcube

 

And it's that 46% that vote and somewhat determine the direction this country takes. Protestant Churches are usually very conservative and tell their parishioners to vote for a particular candidate and they do. Anyone that thinks their is a separation of church and state is delusional.

You obviously don't know how separation of church and state works. The theory is supposed to keep the government from establishing a national religion; it has NOTHING to do with keeping the faithful out of the political process.

You truly believe in the divine father? And you are 50+ years old? How do you manage such a thing

You must have scars for every week.

edit on 6-6-2012 by HamrHeed because: (no reason given)

I do believe in Almighty God. I can't say whether I believe in "religion," as it has been given to both Catholics (and subsequently Protestants) because there is a LOT that has been left out of the Roman Catholic tradition that the early church believed in; but yes I do believe in a Supreme Being, and in Jesus Christ - and I was dragged into that belief kicking and screaming.

I was raised in a Christian home and went to a Christian school until 9th grade, so I was pretty well steeped in the Bible by the time I was 14. And then I started questioning what I'd been taught. For almost 30 years I was an unrepentant sinner, until I started studying prophecy. The chances that the prophecies in the Bible would be fulfilled exactly as they have been are nearly nonexistent.

Allow me to demonstrate with the first part of my interview with Pastor Gallups, in which we discuss the fulfillment of many prophecies, including the reestablishment of Israel and the Gog.Magog War - prophesied 2,500 years ago - that is unfolding on our TVs right now.



I implore you to take 15 minutes and educate yourself. These events could NOT have happened as a result of coincidence. Some Being, which resides outside of our space-time and can see events from the beginning to the end, gave this information to Bronze Age men and they wrote it down to warn us. There is no denying this. There is no way they could have accurately predicted this war; alone, they could hardy predict if it was going to rain that day. Some type of "supernatural" guidance must have been given to them.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Barcs

 

Then would you outline who we evolved from I'd enjoy that clarification.

simple questions belie a simple mind.
why do you need to know exactly who and where we came from to entertain the idea that evolution might be an accurate way to describe the way species change over time? why do mountains of peripheral evidence not at least point you in the vaguest direction of the truth? i'm sure the entire scientific community would ENJOY THAT CLARIFICATION. as soon as they find it, i'm sure they're going to start freaking out and you'll hear about it. the fact is that we have THEORIZED that there must exist a common ancestor from which the modern similar species like man and chimp came. it sounds a lot more plausible, at least to me, than a lot of the other theories out there on our origins.
god did it, aliens did it, it's all the same. people hate evolution because it doesn't even bother to answer the question WHY. it only deals with the HOW and that leaves some people scared and confused.

reply to post by apushforenlightment


I do not apply to modern religion. I believe in spirituality but not what is always written by the hand of man.

Originally posted by Apheon

Originally posted by Lionhearte

Originally posted by HumanCondition
46% of the US has a serious social mental illness.

Translation-

46% of the US is retarded, and I am more intelligent then those 143 million people.

To the rest of you- Evolution is a theory and has NOT been observed, never, ever, ever. It has never been proven, and it is not science.

Debate me, I challenge you. Any claim, any question, any attack- I accept all.

What the difference between a Theory and Blind Faith?

I KNOW, I KNOW! With evolution, blind faith is believing that shepherds and farmers from around 2000 years ago had it right about where everything came from. Theory is taking a fresh look at something and backing it up with more evidence than a manipulated 2 millennium old text.

One thing is for sure. Theory evolves. Anything else is naive trustfulness.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by OldCorp

 

Care to summarize the book? I agree that some observations of the Universe are very difficult to comprehend, e.g. order arising from chaos. Indeed such things could in theory even imply some form of intelligence behind the design. Nonetheless, under no circumstances does this kind of stuff support the existence of some personal superhero magic God like Allah, Shiva, or the angry genocide God of the Bible.

Pastor Gallups uses logic and science to prove the existence of God. Yes, there is scripture involved, but he uses the scientific method to prove his claims. Richard Dawkins is going to have a cow when he reads it.

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Apheon
What the difference between a Theory and Blind Faith?

Blind faith is blind faith. Theories are based on observations and induction and require only understanding. No blind faith needed. That's the difference.

Would you have believed atoms existed before we were able to view them?

Depends on what the literature on atoms was like at the time. Direct observations are not always possible, and induction is needed. If the evidence was good enough and I had evaluated it, then yes, maybe. Wouldn't have been blind faith since the evidence was there

I agree, but it was still a leap of faith back then. They had an idea that they existed but it couldn't be proven until later.

It's not the same than blind faith.

I agree, but it took faith none the less.

Key difference here being that it was the working hypothesis. They said, "this and that supports the idea that something is". It's very different to "God had a zombie child, don't question it, this is the eternal truth".

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Apheon
What the difference between a Theory and Blind Faith?

Blind faith is blind faith. Theories are based on observations and induction and require only understanding. No blind faith needed. That's the difference.

Would you have believed atoms existed before we were able to view them?

Depends on what the literature on atoms was like at the time. Direct observations are not always possible, and induction is needed. If the evidence was good enough and I had evaluated it, then yes, maybe. Wouldn't have been blind faith since the evidence was there

I agree, but it was still a leap of faith back then. They had an idea that they existed but it couldn't be proven until later.

It's not the same than blind faith.

I agree, but it took faith none the less.

Key difference here being that it was the working hypothesis. They should, this and that supports the idea that something is. It's very different to "God had a zombie child, don't question it, this is the eternal truth".

I agree, question everything. Find your own truths, not always from others. If we had blindly followed previous theories science would have never changed.

FACT...Humans have existed on Planet Earth in one form or another for close to 5 Million Years.

According to a radio carbon date that ranges from 5 million to 10,000 based on which scientist you go to and which one agrees with your hypothesis and therefore is the "official" date maker used in your study. Since the inventor of radio carbon dating said himself he would not use it to determine factual dating, due to the need for atmosphereic conditions to remain identical as they were at the time of the invention, and since conditions are already different then they were just 50 years ago, you can reasonably conclude that the atmosphereic condition fluxuate considerably at verias times in our history.

FACT...Evolution stopped being a theory a while back and we use genetics every day and have a very good grasp of how all life on this Planet Evolved with some specific Found Viral DNA encoding that proves that all life Evolved form a Single Celled Organism or Animal.

No it is still a theory, otherwise it would be the law of evolution. Tell me how the single cell organism was created from amino acids in order for the virus to modify it? How was the virus created? Where did the amino acids come from? Even if this statement was determined as fact, wouldn't it mean all life "could" evolve from a single celled organism, not proof that it "did". One possibilty does not indicate proof, which is why it remains a theory to this day.

FACT...By recreating the enviromental conditions that existed Billions of years ago...GENESIS...the act of Life Evolving from Lifelessness...has been reproduced in multiple lab conditions. But in order for the Scientific Method to Prove this was not tainted via improper controls...the act of GENESIS must be repeated more than once and even if that is achieved must be verified...this takes awhile but within 12 to 20 months...verification will take place.

The LAW OF BIOGENISIS
The Law of Biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, states that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material.

Don't disregard a scientific law in order to add creditibility to a theory.

FACT...Civilizations on the Asian Continent especially in China and Japan have Records that predate BIBLICAL ASSUMPTION of how old the EARTH is and all the BEGETS in the listing of the first People of the Bible.

China's book of kings is the only perfect historical account of mankind's generations outside of the Bible, they are in perfect unison. Cusho (chinese for black man) was the first king post flood of the Chinese, this was Cush; father of Nimrod who ruled the peoples who were moved to China while they were still in Babel prior to the confounding of the languages.

FACT...The KING JAMES BIBLE IS LOADED WITH MISTRANSLATIONS...

But the original text in Greek (NT) and Hebrew (OT) are still available and both languages still exist today, the Holy Spirit dwelling the minds of men is the "translator" of the words of God (logos = relevatory thoughts).

FACT...EASTER...was the Christian Attempt to change a Pagan Fertility Holiday of Spring known as the Festival of ESTER...and none of this had anything to do with Jesus. The same process was used for the Winter Solstace as Pagans used to Decorate Trees with ornaments and candles although CHRISTMAS was not approved by the church until just a century or so ago.

Thank you for prooving the satanic hijacking of God's laws as performed through the Roman Catholic Church. You are correct any christian that keeps these days are bringing honor to the lies of Satan.

WWJD
Keep a 7th day Sabbath as a sign forever that you are God's people. (not Sunday)
Keep the 7 annual Holidays as command by God. (Not Christmas and Easter)
Keep the 10 commandments fully (not most of them).

God Bless,

Originally posted by OldCorp

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by OldCorp

 

Care to summarize the book? I agree that some observations of the Universe are very difficult to comprehend, e.g. order arising from chaos. Indeed such things could in theory even imply some form of intelligence behind the design. Nonetheless, under no circumstances does this kind of stuff support the existence of some personal superhero magic God like Allah, Shiva, or the angry genocide God of the Bible.

Pastor Gallups uses logic and science to prove the existence of God. Yes, there is scripture involved, but he uses the scientific method to prove his claims. Richard Dawkins is going to have a cow when he reads it.

Science doesn't prove absolutes and the scientific method can't be applied to the super natural. I highly doubt the book is as impressive as you make it out to be. But again, can you provide some kind of summary of the key points?