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

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

Fine prove them wrong



This is the only thing Evolutionary theory has going for it:



Some people think they can fully explain everything and there are those who think that man can not explain everything.

One is the epitomy of arrogrance, and the other is accepting that he does not know everything.

reply to post by acuna

This whole idea of God as just another "guy", except infinitely bigger, is so narrow minded that it's as utterly ridiculous and absurd as the notion that the miracle of life is a purely random occurance without any sort of guiding or organizing principal of creativity.

Both literalist fundamentalists and atheists, as well as atheists masquerading as agnostics (a rather convenient position to take), are equally off the mark.

There is a third way, which could enlighten and illuminate both sides of the "debate"

The God Theory

Originally posted by Tbrooks76
Evolution vs Creation….Dumb debate…

You all do realize it’s 100% speculation. None of us were there, no go good accountable records with details were taken so anything someone choses to believe about it is pure speculation based on what ‘facts’ the want to believe. There is no 100% fact trail to follow, each side of the debate has tons holes in their theories rather they want to admit it or not. An Evolutionist cannot explain or recreate how the first cell got life, a creationist can’t explain how/why God made the universe so huge and light from stars billions of miles away is hitting the earth. When you look at debates on this, Creationist have damm good point that Evolutionist ignore and well Evolutionist have great points Creationist ignore. Debating it stupid because all you do is point the holes in each other theories…

It boils down to is which set of ‘facts’ you want to follow to get the desired outcome your happy with.
Evolution vs Creation is all personal preference.

This is yet another example of trying to make religion a science (holes in the theory) and evolution a religion (100% speculation).

First off there is no such thing as 100% fact trail. Just like there isn't a 100% chance that with the next step u take the atoms on the ground won't separate and you end up falling into a black hole. It's astronomically improbable, but not 100%.

The reason science is different than religion is because science speculates on whats observed. Religion speculates on blind faith.

Personally, I'm "happy" with highly probable outcomes.... Occam's Razor.

Btw, evolutionists job is not to explain how the first cell, or cells, formed. Just how they evolved from that point.

There are a lot of other sciences working on that problem. The merger between physics and biology continues to grow everyday.

Wow... I kind of expected you people to be happy about this, that the belief of God is surviving the global elite's attempts to downplay it. But I forgot, a lot of people here are big on evolution, and not God. That's sad.

You know something else that's sad? The person who made the theory of evolution, Charles Darwin, only meant it as a joke... then people started freaking out, taking the theory seriously. I'm not saying evolution is totally wrong, but it's only a theory... and even if we spawned from monkeys, someone had to create the monkeys, right?

This isn't a bad thing. Calm down.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

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

SO WHAT?

Creationism is just a viable theory as evolution. Creationism and evolution are just as viable theories as the theory that life on earth came from off this planet and we were 'seeded' here. It's all theory. One is as good as the other. Probably none will be proven for sure.

edit on 6/6/2012 by FlyersFan because: spelling

science is an ever changing entity, it will always improve. with time we can have all the answers. that is the difference between religion and science. no matter how many centuries pass science will continue to develop into better understanding. religion however will still sit in that same pool of ignorance that keeps it alive. creationalism, in my opinion is dead wrong for so many reasons. if not for the fact that we have historical evidence predating there claims, then its the civilizations who don't even know what creationalism is, and have predating ancestral ties. evolution is by far a more rational answer. it explains a great deal, and will only explain more with time as technology advances the human race.

if a book, containing stories written by many men, that have little historical value, can be perceived as the base of all life and life after. then 20000 years from now a readers digest is going to be a religious text.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Tee hee, they have photos of the giant sequoias that are 100 years old.
Scroll down this page and you will find old daguerreotype photos taken during the 1800's
www.cathedralgrove.eu...

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
This whole idea of God as just another "guy", except infinitely bigger, is so narrow minded that it's as utterly ridiculous and absurd as the notion that the miracle of life is a purely random occurance without any sort of guiding or organizing principal of creativity.

Why is the latter absurd? If you invoke a preexisting intelligence to explain the laws of nature and reality, then how absurd is the origin of that? I don't claim to understand how it's possible that everything exists. Nonetheless, ever since, things like how galaxies, solar systems, planets, and life from inorganic matter form, have happened through natural processes. Of course it's impossible to rule out a divine intervention, although it really does not look like one was ever needed. It's coincidental that we exist. We wouldn't be here if that meteorite hadn't hit Yucatan ~65 million years ago. Can you seriously believe that this was planned?

Thank the Founding Fathers for putting freedom of religion in the Constitution. We can all choose our own beliefs. If 46% happen to pick A on a questionnaire, good for them, it is their right!

reply to post by XxNightAngelusxX


I am sure that Charles Darwin would be happy to hear that his lifes work on The Origins of Species was just a joke. So funny that he spent years not only writing it but doing the illustrations as well. Funny funny.

Not surprising.

46% is within the margin of error for the percentage of people that voted for John McCain in 08.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Tbrooks76
A. It just was always here with no begin or end and our universe is in a constant state of changing. No big bang or anything, it's just always been.
B. Or it had a beginning in which something outside this universe put everything in motion. (a.k.a GOD)

That’s really your only two options.

Not really. The answer to B doesn't need to be God. According to the M-theory, the Universe is but one "bubble" in a Multiverse, and the Big Bang but the result of the collision of two branes. So it could for example be that the existence of the Multiverse is eternal, but our Universe has a finite lifespan..

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

What always gets me.... is where is this multiverse then .....what's outside of it ?, where is "here" in the scheme of things ???
Does contemplating infinity drive one crazy ?
What is exactly is "nothing" and how can we have thing from nothing ?

www.brianclegg.net...

I have to say that I accept evolution and it's not as if it disproves "a supreme forever creator" . It's not hard to see how a single cell can become complex multi-cellular organism over time.. Look at the sponge... slap it through a sieve and it will re-assemble itself, look at amoeba when they group together to form slime molds...anyway preaching to the choir...

It’s very hard to take Genesis in the Bible literally
For instance who were the "Gods" (Elohim - is a plural word in the original Hebrew OT) that created heaven & earth and us "Adm" (man & woman) in their likeness (male and female), right at the end after all the plants/animals in Genesis 1. (These “gods” keep popping up all over the place, Yahweh telling them to judge us etc …so I doubt the it's the "trinity" theory)
In Gen 2 the "they" is switched out to say "Yahweh Elohim" was doing the creating.. and that he created a male adm, followed by making a woman from his rib .....and then making the plants and animals....

Shouldn't have been too difficult to keep the order of creation the same in 2 chapters next to each other, should it ?

Or is the word of God contradictory to enhance our ability to take it all on faith ...

www.scripture4all.org...
faculty.gvsu.edu...

reply to post by Omniview


I am the scientific minded type and hold religion as control for the masses however in the way of evolution is the fact that there has not been found a direct link from us to the monkey or even from monkey to the earliest species of man. We've found remains of early humans but no remains for a being that is somewhere in between monkey and man. I believe in evolution but I dont think we evolved from the ape. I believe we were a seperate species all together different from the ape.

Originally posted by daslobo
reply to post by Klassified

 

Catholics don't believe in creationism. The Vatican supports the theory of evolution, stating that it is divinely inspired, not spontaneous.

Funny though, the Catholics I do know personally, still believe in the Genesis Creation. I'm actually surprised they do.

Originally posted by neo96


One is the epitomy of arrogrance, and the other is accepting that he does not know everything.

so a non religion based answer to the origin of of the human race is arrogant? science is an ever learning subject as long as we have science we can continue to grow (for better or worse) as a species. if scientist were to be as arrogant as say, they would not be scientist. they would sit on there ass all day smelling farts. we would not have science if we thought we knew everything. we actually have supporting evidence against your claims, all you have is (you cant prove it so we are right) how about predating civilizations that have no idea what creationalism is. or predating archaeological finds. anything in this universe can be used against creationalism. yet only the fact that evolution is a *theory* can be used against evolution.

reply to post by Furbs


Trouble maker ! I wonder what precentage of that 46% are repulbicans ? ( see I can make trouble too )

Originally posted by neo96
Some people think they can fully explain everything and there are those who think that man can not explain everything.

One is the epitomy of arrogrance, and the other is accepting that he does not know everything.

I couldn't agree more!

As a human secularist and scientist, my favorite and most exciting phrase that can possibly be uttered is, "I don't know." I find that life is limiting when one simply answers questions with a catchall like, "God did it." It just doesn't seem satisfying. I mean, even if "God did it", wouldn't you want to know how?

I'm surprised it's that high. As long as they keep their beliefs to themselves and don't try to make it out like it's a alternative theory to evolution, I'm fine with it.

Originally posted by neo96
In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

Fine prove them wrong

Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. It's a belief in the same way that off is a TV channel or bald is hair color. Also, evolution isn't atheist at all, as there are many religious people who accept evolution. It's amazing that in the information age there are many ignorant people (such as yourself) who exist.

Also, there's really no need to prove them wrong, as their "theory" has no leg to stand on. It's not falsifiable for one, and two there's no evidence supporting it.

reply to post by Lionhearte


In reading your posts I see that you are respectful to others. I appreciate that. You also seem intelligent and reasonable. Please do yourself a solid and do not use Kent Hovind as a scientific source. He's a proven criminal and pseudo-scientist. He attended unaccredited universities. Check out his wikipedia page and research this dude.

Peace

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Tbrooks76
Evolution vs Creation….Dumb debate…

You all do realize it’s 100% speculation. None of us were there, no go good accountable records with details were taken so anything someone choses to believe about it is pure speculation based on what ‘facts’ the want to believe.

Oh, if you apply THAT sort of logic, then we can't be sure of anything at all. Where does this giant crater in Arizona come from? Could it be Devil's handiwork? Or was it a large meteorite that crashed into Earth at high speed? What do you think? Is this really that much of speculation? Also, the oldest sequoia trees -- can we really claim they are a few thousand years old (or hundreds, or whatever)? Nobody really planted them and than kept logbook on their growth. Maybe they are as young as 40 years of age, is that also a speculation?

We can't see inside molecules with our own eyes. So, by your logic, all of chemistry is speculation as well.

YES!!!

The whole theory of electrical is based on Electron flow and we use models and concepts we know have flaws but work for our needs. We can speculate on what electrons are but the fact is we don't know for 100% fact. Working in this field, I can tell you it is allot of speculation and all our theories are based on this, but it works. So yes all of chemistry is speculation (good speculation), but still there allot we don't know.

As far as the crater in Arizona, a meteor is damm good speculation, I would say that's 99.99% right, there not much room for else...but evolution isn't in a 99.99% right bracket, there is still allot holes to fill in theory. Sorry to say, but there is. I can't say it wrong, but I can prove its right, yet I can say the same for creation. So it becomes a belief system on both sides.

reply to post by karen61057


You are very right about this. i don't believe we evolved from apes either, and you are also about 50% correct on religion. is ancient times religion was the best tool in controlling large populations without even having to be politically active. and since most religions are passed down generations. its was almost self sustaining. however in the world we live in there are religions and belief systems that are true to there nature. and our wonderful and non invasive. (i wish i could name more the Buddhism but i'm not knowledgeable on the subject )

anyways good tidings to you.