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

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
+6 more 
posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   

This is plausible, yet there is evidence to contradict it - since there does exist historical evidence for a flood, the Biblical account is indeed true. If it is indeed true, the one who saved Noah through the Ark is the true God, and that is very significant in my opinion.


That's a logical fallacy. Even if it were true that the Bible accurately describes an ancient flood, it does not follow that its account of Noah is "true" because of it. Historical romances accurately describe the civil war, for example, but it doesn't mean that they are "true stories."

By the way, my wife is a Geologist and she tells me that there is considerable controversy in the earth sciences re: the "flood" described in Genesis. That doesn't mean there wasn't one, of course, but it is a notion that is far from settled, except in the minds of extreme partisans on both sides.

However -- even if the Bible accurately describes the flood itself, there is no actual evidence of Noah, or the Ark, so the cognitive leap you made in the quote above is speculation at best.

As to the rest: I am fascinated by the notion that the maker, who created the multiverse, our universe, billions of galaxies, trillions of stars, and an infinity of "worlds" would desire or need to create a pathetic, short lived slave whose only purpose is to deify its maker. It seems tragically "human," and frankly -- preposterous.

However -- I will admit that there is always a possibility that I am missing some crucial piece of information, and my analysis is flawed.

Will you in turn admit that it is at least possible that a blind man, holding an elephants balls, knows very little about the Elephantinae?


edit on 5-6-2012 by 0zzymand0s because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erectus
You must be speaking of the new testament when you say that the bible is all roses and doves. The old testament is a thousand page account of Gods' orders to slaughter men, women, and children by the tens of thousands at a time because they weren't Moses' grandchildren. What changed in those few centuries between Malachi and Matthew?

No, the Old and New Testament are one part of the whole. The whole point of the Old Testament was to show how evil men were, and why we couldn't fulfill the law, and how we were all doomed to destruction. The NT is all about how we have gained salvation through grace.

Nothing has changed, God is the same he was thousands of years ago as He is today, and as He is today, He was thousands of years ago.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte

To the rest of you- Evolution is a theory and has NOT been observed, never, ever, ever.


Thanks for reminding me, LH. A few days ago I wondered why science can't take an insect that lives for a very short period (is there one that lives only a day?) of time and watch it's descendants evolve via the manipulation of its environment.

Just googled shortest living insect and came up with the Mayfly, which lives one hour to 24 hours.

Put some mayflies in a controlled environment (a fish tank) and (I dunno) alter it's food supply, change the humidity... How long would it take for these insects to show clear evolutionary changes? I'm not just talking about changing it's color. I mean I want to see extra limbs grow, maybe a new defense mechanism. Something that clearly shows an evolutionary change.

Why can't this be done, or has it been done?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


But, what of the polytheistic flood myth that preceeded the biblical account?
Atrahasis?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Anyone with sufficient education would be able to understand Evolutionary Theory and the support for it.

It's clear in this thread that people still have major misconceptions about Evolutionary Theory, even here on the Origins and Creation board.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by 0zzymand0s
 


I'm inclined to disagree about the evidence of the Flood and of Noah, as it's believed that Ron Wyatt has found it's location, and even in practicalities, even if the Ark was never found or if it never existed, there's perfectly logical ways to create an ark of that dimension and fit all of the kinds of animals that existed at the time, and not have the boat crack in half - there's a whole science behind it, actually.


As to the rest: I am fascinated by the notion that the maker, who created the multiverse, our universe, billions of galaxies, trillions of stars, and an infinity of "worlds" would desire or need to create a pathetic, short lived slave whose only purpose is to deify its maker. It seems tragically "human," and frankly -- preposterous.

However -- I will admit that there is always a possibility that I am missing some crucial piece of information, and my analysis is flawed.


It seems tragically human because you're thinking about it in the wrong sense; in, well, a human manner. Nothing wrong with that, really, but sometimes you need to think outside the box. If God/the Maker/the Creator could be understood in our tiny 3lb brain, he wouldn't be very big, and certainly wouldn't be worth worshiping.

Though I agree that there is always a piece of crucial piece of evidence that everyone is missing - whether it supports their views or opposes it, what matters is if they are willing to keep an open mind and be willing to change their beliefs should evidence oppose it.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


Whenever you feel inspired, have a moment, and are ready to flip the script, I'll be waiting. I love outside the box thinking, and I am eagerly looking forward to your explanation.

I can tell you this: After years of parochial schools, very little -- beyond "love each other," and "try not to be so judgmental" ever rang true for me. Its probably a defect, of course, but whom can I blame for that or seek redress for it, but my maker?

After all: If the maker exists, *it made me* curious, questioning, suspicious of authority, and of a perverse humor, in addition to any "good qualities" I might possess, right?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by CodyOutlaw
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


But, what of the polytheistic flood myth that preceeded the biblical account?
Atrahasis?


It actually came about 1400 years after the flood.


Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


Whenever you feel inspired, have a moment, and are ready to flip the script, I'll be waiting. I love outside the box thinking, and I am eagerly looking forward to your explanation.
The same applies to you, friend.


I can tell you this: After years of parochial schools, very little -- beyond "love each other," and "try not to be so judgmental" ever rang true for me. Its probably a defect, of course, but whom can I blame for that or seek redress for it, but my maker?
Could you elaborate? Are you stating that you never perceived this to be true, because others could not demonstrate this command, or because you yourself could not?


After all: If the maker exists, *it made me* curious, questioning, suspicious of authority, and of a perverse humor, in addition to any "good qualities" I might possess, right?

*IF* the maker exists, as in the one I believe in, then you have to assume a few more things - first, that Satan exists, and secondly, that free will exists.

The maker would not have "made you" do anything, otherwise he is cruel and would not be a perfect being, as it makes us go through this life without us having any decision making at all; and if it isn't perfect, how could it be omniscient?

I wouldn't even go so far as to say "Satan" made you do anything, but we're all influenced by something, and I call evil influence from Satan, and good influence from God - yet your perception of good isn't likely accurate, and I'll tell you why - because even our "good" deeds are an extension of our own self-righteousness.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


No, I think you misunderstood me.
I mean to say the Atrahasis account predates both the Gilgamesh and the biblical one.
This is a Babylonian account, concerning a Sumerian king, and it is a polytheistic account.
This would then be an argument in favor of polytheism, yes?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Almost everyone born after 1960 that went to a public school has ONLY been taught evolution. So if anything it could be argued that those who do not believe in evolution-whatever that may be- are actually thinking more outside the box than the rest.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by cleverhans
 

Wow.
Everybody quit school/aprenticeships/university/whatever education NOW!
Ignorance equals creativity and free thinking now LOL!

Only in America...



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
And this is supposed to be a forward thinking, rational, smart country? This takes the cake. Sheesh!!



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by blackcube
 


Evolution is just a theory man, no more proof to that than the stories a man had sex with a monkey and created HIV. Fossil records indicate that all life originated round about the same time.



At least it's a theory, not just some blind dogma. I still reckon the giant toaster going around out near the asteroid belt that controls everything in the universe is in the running. What? Am I saying something stupid? It's got just as much credibility as any other dogma imo



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


Hope you have never taken any anti biotics lion, I'd hate for you to see that changing viruses and bacteria are evolution in action and that the anti biotics have helped people get better. Don't bother debating, just don't bother. If you or ANYBODY you know has ever taken anti biotics and recovered from some bad bacterial infection, and you debate evolution, then imo you are an hypocrite



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by steve1709
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


Hope you have never taken any anti biotics lion, I'd hate for you to see that changing viruses and bacteria are evolution in action and that the anti biotics have helped people get better. Don't bother debating, just don't bother. If you or ANYBODY you know has ever taken anti biotics and recovered from some bad bacterial infection, and you debate evolution, then imo you are an hypocrite



God made the viruses change just like he put fossils in the ground.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   

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.




When competent individuals are dealing with the mentally handicapped they don't challenge or attack them because they are not capable of critical thinking.


Why would you be treated any differently?


The good news for the rest of us is that those 46% of older intellectually limited Americans are already on their way out. Those that are terrified of words like "progress" and "logic" will not be around much longer to keep us in the dark ages where things like homosexual rights and scientific advancements (stem cell research for example) are being held back.

edit on 5-6-2012 by Hawking because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by steve1709
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


Hope you have never taken any anti biotics lion, I'd hate for you to see that changing viruses and bacteria are evolution in action and that the anti biotics have helped people get better. Don't bother debating, just don't bother. If you or ANYBODY you know has ever taken anti biotics and recovered from some bad bacterial infection, and you debate evolution, then imo you are an hypocrite


Yes, Micro-Evolution. I've already debated the subject of bacteria over in this thread, and here is my response. Read the post below it, as well. It's a continuation.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by steve1709
 


EDIT: Sorry to barge in, I was reading in order again. =/

Be fair man, he already said he had no problem with micro-evolution. It's one thing to go off on someone whose story keeps changing, but he has been consistent in his beliefs in this regard.
edit on 5-6-2012 by 0zzymand0s because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-6-2012 by 0zzymand0s because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   

*IF* the maker exists, as in the one I believe in, then you have to assume a few more things - first, that Satan exists, and secondly, that free will exists.


This is where we jump the tracks, I'm afraid. Jesus' exhortations to "love one another" and to "try not to be so judgmental" make perfect sense to me. But the whole thing falls apart when Paul comes into the picture, and that's just the way I feel. YEARS of parochial school and a picture of a starving African baby taught me to trust that feeling.

I want to be absolutely clear: I will admit to a strongly belief or passion for the existence of "a maker," but I am not prepared to concede the rest of the characters in the Christian milieu and rogues gallery. It's great songwriting, and makes for wonderful drama, but the concept of a god that might -- through omnipotent omniscience -- create an entire universe and allow for the devil anyway due to "free-will" is, well -- as ludicrous as a psychic fair derailed by unforeseen emergency events. It doesn't add up for me.

That doesn't make the core concepts I mentioned above untrue, but the particulars? Not so much.
edit on 6-6-2012 by 0zzymand0s because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 




Evolution is just a theory man


Please learn what the word theory actually means in scientific terms before you post, the more times I have to explain it the more times I lose hope for humanity.

Evolution is merely genetic change over time, it is proven each time a new generation of organisms is born. Each new generation is slightly genetically different from the last, do you agree? Than you accept evolution. By the way Speciation, which is when one species evolves into another, has been directly observed and documented dozens of times both in the lab and in the wild.

Evolution, as a field of study, is a theory.

Evolution, as a fact of biology, is just that, a fact.

Here, I'll let someone far more qualified explain it:








new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join