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

SoulReaper this argument will never finish. You have presented your side admirably, but don't continue to beat your head against the wall.

God cannot be explained or proven, he can only be experienced. They will continue to believe in evolution until they experience Him for themselves.

I just thought about the fact that I never really believed in evolution EVEN before I was a Christian. I think it had a lot to do with the fact that I grew up in a certified haunted house. It just didn't fit with or explain my experiences. I've always been spiritual and into the supernatural and evolutionary thought just didn't do it for me then or now.

Funny people think that Christians are Christians because they were raised that way. The same could be said about an evolutionist. You were told this was how the world worked when you were young and you grew up to never question it. Most people "born into the Church" question it when they become teenagers and rebel. That never seems to happen with an Evolutionist though.

Originally posted by SoulReaper
Noone is claiming that Abiogenesis is the same as evolution.

The link you posted a few pages back claimed exactly that. Evolution can't explain the origin of life was pretty much the basis of the argument and yours. You keep saying science doesn't know x and science doesn't know y. Let's focus on what science DOES know. Anything else is speculation at best.

Noone is claiming that mutations don't happen.

You have ZERO working theories for how the mutations that can be observed... could possiblly have slowly evolved the complex living organisms that we have today.

This is what I'm doubting.. not that mutations take place... but that they took place in the manner that you are proposing.

You really need to do a better job explaining your points. There is a working theory. It's called evolution, the study of genetic mutations and natural selection. What manner do these mutations need to take place in? You need to point out specifics and details if you want to talk science. Simply making a general statement isn't good enough without facts to back it up. What is the actual claim here? Are you trying to say we can't observe evolution in the long term? Are you saying that mutations don't cause changes to species? What exactly is it?

You really have no clue what it means to present a WORKING, PAUSIBLE theory for consideration.

So being backed by genetic mutation rates, natural selection (both observable in a lab and in the wild), the entire fields of biology and genetics, and the fossil record doesn't qualify as plausible or working I guess.

It is a HUGE JUMP to go from showing that mutations happen... to claiming that this process of Accidents in copying information evolved the Complex living organisms that we have studied via modern biology.

None of that makes any sense. You still haven't cited a single piece of evidence from the actual theory of evolution that you disagree with, you just make preachy blanket statements that have no basis in reality and don't apply to evolution.

Linking me to a site that shows an observed process that can occur randomly is not proof that those random process' caused the evolution of a complex living organism.

I'll put this as basically and straight forwardly as I can.

Evolution = genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. To deny evolution is to deny that, A: genetic mutations influence change, and B: natural selection exists. Is this your claim? If it is, I hate to tell you this, but both are proven. You are trying to make evolution its own magical process, but in reality, that's all it is.

Be honest and say that you Have no Working Theory for a godless existence according to science.

There is no "godless" theory. When there is no evidence for something in science, it is ignored, therefor god's existence (whether yes or no) does not factor in to any scientific theories or equations. It doesn't mean god doesn't exist or that science is against god. Science works with objective reality.

Your theories are all based on Faith in incredible events against impossible odds.

Odds greater than a god? Please break down those numbers for me. 2nd request. I want to see the math behind your "odds".

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not there is a god. Why does evolution conflict with your faith? Why doesn't it STRENGTHEN your faith? Shouldn't god using a process of evolution to create life make him that much greater? I don't get the beef.

Lets start with this:

evolution.berkeley.edu...

Very basic, easy to understand to the point. If you want to talk science, let's do it, cite me some of the faulty science from that link. It you want to discuss it that's fine, but I'm not just going to go back and forth on semantics. Backing up claims is kind of important on here.

Originally posted by INDOMITABLE
SoulReaper this argument will never finish. You have presented your side admirably, but don't continue to beat your head against the wall.

God cannot be explained or proven, he can only be experienced. They will continue to believe in evolution until they experience Him for themselves.

I just thought about the fact that I never really believed in evolution EVEN before I was a Christian. I think it had a lot to do with the fact that I grew up in a certified haunted house. It just didn't fit with or explain my experiences. I've always been spiritual and into the supernatural and evolutionary thought just didn't do it for me then or now.

Funny people think that Christians are Christians because they were raised that way. The same could be said about an evolutionist. You were told this was how the world worked when you were young and you grew up to never question it. Most people "born into the Church" question it when they become teenagers and rebel. That never seems to happen with an Evolutionist though.

Here's the thing. Evolution doesn't have to conflict with belief in god and is not a theory about the origin of life. This is the fatal flaw to your argument and his. You guys are hellbent on attacking science, but why? Why is it so difficult to reconcile your beliefs to our objective understanding of the world and the universe? You cannot "admirably" present the side of god and loving and peace and harmony and everything else while at the same time attacking an establish field of study in science. That conflicts with the teachings of the faith (more specifically of Jesus).

I'm just trying to understand your position here. I believe in freedom of religion strongly; but why specifically is it an "either / or" scenario with you guys as far as god vs evolution? Why can't it be both? I know it can hurt the ego to consider you may not be a perfect being with an amazing purpose, specifically designed, but evolution doesn't conflict with anything except literal scriptures in certain stories. Is your faith in god or literal passages of a multi-translated compilation book?

There's no reason to declare war on a field of science. None whatsoever. It's unjustified, unsubstantiated, and 99% of all scientists, the people who dedicate their entire lives to studying this specific subject, have accepted evolution. Many still believe in god. Why are you afraid of it?

reply to post by INDOMITABLE


Come on, if there is no free will and we did not experience Him, is it now our foul?

What do you think about this?

Or this...

Wolford believed that the Bible requires Christians to handle poisonous snakes to test their faith in God, and remain steadfast in their belief that they will not be bitten or will be healed if they are attacked. Death by rattlesnake is “excruciating—the venom attacks the nervous system, and it’s vicious and gruesome when it hits,” a snake expert told the Post. Wolford was the son of a snake-handler preacher who died of a snake bite when Wolford was 15.

I’ll tell you what it is. Its these goddam Jewish snakes. These Chosen Rattlesnakes who don’t believe in Jesus. Don’t even listen to a word the pastor says. Most people see a serpent and the automatically assume its the devil, but I think its actually just a bunch of Jew snakes.

linky

Ahh, I've been busy tonight.. didn't have time to respond here.

However if we are actually going to discuss the science behind abiogenesis perhaps it would be good to first have some clarity on what it proposes and what foundation it rests on.

As i understand abiogenesis it basically proposes the following components.. with some variation depending on which scientist you are speaking to

1. An atmosphere full of reduced gas molecules and an energy source to convert these molecules into the biological precursors required for life.

2. An ocean full of the small biological molecules that result. (it should be noted that other locations such as clay, or volcanic rock have been put forth as possible cradles for the first living organism. Changing the location doesn't really change the problems that arise from their hypothesis.)

3. A mechanism to generate from this ocean of molecules the kinds of information-rich polymers necessary for a living cell.

4. A belief that if step 3 can be implemented, it will result almost inevitably in the formation of a living cell.


Could we agree that these four components are essential to the story of the origin of life put forward by proponents of naturalism?

If so, I'll take them each and show you the problems with the claims that have been made regarding each component. If you would like to add an essential component to the list, feel free.

I don't have time tonight to dive into it.. but I'll likely have time tomorrow.

We shall see what Science really has to say regarding abiogenesis.

Soul

reply to post by SoulReaper


WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION?

Ask one.

Get an answer.

Stop moving the bar.

reply to post by Barcs


BTW Barcs.

You are still so far behind on comprehending what we are discussing here. Evolution in a very limited sense is real and observable, that is it can cause slight variations within a species of things such as physical traits, size, color, weight.. ect.

Evolution in the sense of the first living organism evolving via Mutations all the way up to humans has NOT been observed nor explained in any scientific manner with a working plausible theory.

It has not in any way been proven that mutations caused a single celled organism to grow increasingly more complex nor has there been provided a working explaination for how humans came to be in their present form.

Claiming that fish evolved into mammals and reptiles evolved into birds is pure fantasy with zero evidence behind it.

Science would have to produce literally millions of transitional species that represent the Slow evolution via mutation from one species to another. And each species would have to maintain its "superiority" for your "natural selection" to hold up... even while its fins slowly morph into legs or its legs slowly morph into wings. How would such a creature survive during the slow transition while it has no functional fins, legs, or wings??

Or do you actually maintain that in one generation a fish stopped having fins and instantly had fully functional and working legs?

You claiming that this is proven science that the single celled organism evolved via mutation into the complex life form of a human is laughable.

the fact remains that they have no proof of transitional species, nor that mutations add new Useful information into the genome of any currently existing species in a manner that would support such a notion.

They can't even explain in theory what process would have to occur for a fish to morph slowly into a mammal. point out to me where they have laid out step by step the Genetic mutations that were introduced to the DNA of a fish that caused it to turn into an air breathing mammal.

you can't, Evolution has been shown to produce variation within species. But this morphing from one species to another is highly suspect and Evolution cannot claim to have proven its capabilities across such a grand scope of altering biological life to such an extreme.

Soul

reply to post by SoulReaper


Your big problem is that we don't have the entire fossil record for the entire history of the planet?

Not sure if you understand the definition of Scientific Fact.

reply to post by SoulReaper



As a god believer can you tell me this,why was the bible and the beliefs contained in it restricted to a small area of the Earth.

Now if your so called god can create something out of nothing why was his so called message NOT planet wide, why did areas of the world not known at the time to the people of the middle east not get the message.
Such an easy task for a god

All cultures round the world have their god(s) stories and their creation stories, god(s) were a problem solver when people could not understand why something happened it was a god(s).

How was the Earth,sky,stars,moon,sun made etc etc,for example what caused thunder easy the thunder god.

Here is a link to some of the god(s) MAN has created.

www.lowchensaustralia.com...

All the gods listed there were believed in by the people who followed them they have creation stories and have just as much right to be believed in as YOUR god. They CANT all be right but guess what they CAN all be wrong, because all god(s) including yours have a few things in common.

No evidence of god(s) existance and all created by MAN

reply to post by SoulReaper


This might help you understand Evolution

wmd_2008,
he does not like to learn the truth... It does not go well with his faith.


reply to post by SoulReaper


Soul, just look abiogenesis' wiki website, and if you don't like wikipedia, follow links on reference section.

You'll find there something like this...

There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life.

It is not so simple as you try it to make, nor is simple as if someone just used commands to make whole world in all of its complexity in 7 days.

“We keep on being told that religion, whatever its imperfections, at least instills morality. On every side, there is conclusive evidence that the contrary is the case and that faith causes people to be more mean, more selfish, and perhaps above all, more stupid.” ― Christopher Hitchens

reply to post by SoulReaper


Welp, good luck to you, I'm done here. You clearly have no idea how science works or what it is.. but you're quick to attack it. You ignored all of my points, which specifically responded to yours, and responded with a condescending attitude. I guess debates aren't your thing. You have yet to address the scientific evidence behind evolution. You just keep pretending it doesn't exist. You are just repeating blatantly wrong statements and continue to create your own fantasy definition of evolution. The knowledge is out there. Educate yourself instead of preaching about things you know nothing about. Stick to religion instead of attacking science with strawmans and other logical fallacies.

Your entire post summed up: "I don't understand evolution, and science doesn't know everything, so I'm right!"

It's probably time for creationists to make the most of it while they still can. Our knowledge of the universe has already shrunk the anthropomorphic god of popular religions domain quite considerably. Soon this might be another one the fundamentalists can cross of their "god did it" list. It appears now that god only lives in logical fallacies or areas where science is still in some ways, ignorant. There doesn't seem to be any positive arguments available for a god/creator, only negative arguments towards science. In this way he really does appear to be the god of ignorance.

People cling to primitive cultural myths, not only in preference to the search for knowledge (wherever that might take us), but in lieu of already known facts. Nothing very spiritual in that. As an unsubstantiated belief, religion should be kept away from people until they are old enough and mature enough to seek it for themselves IMO. I doubt it would last too long without access to young minds to indoctrinate.

reply to post by SoulReaper

But this morphing from one species to another is highly suspect

Not at all...we have witnessed speciation both in the lab and in nature...and in addition to that, the fossil record and DNA analysis fully back it up too. Lastly, we actively use it in modern medicine to create meds.

In short...not suspect at all if you care about facts. It's only suspect if you're a brainwashed believer who pretends the bible/koran is infallible

If he follows wmd_2008's video, he would learn a bit about evolution.

Just recently it was on ted talk speech on how hard is in for example Africa to get close to place with many fossils. From political barriers, to natural one including very remote location, high temperature and huge area to cover.

Still, we have many fossils proving evolution and how it happened, and you can view it on video above, very simplified version, but it contains answers to many questions.

Originally posted by steve1709
That's it guys, keep this thread going. I have a $100 bet with a mate that it'll reach 40 pages. So PLEASE keep it going. Wow, just imagine if we can reach 40 pages of guff. Again I say, qudos to the believers who care enough for their fellow man to try and "save" him and again I say to those who have finally given up believing in fairy tales and make believe stories that there is no way anyone can change the mind of a person who is trapped in the dogme mindset. Have a great day and please, get this thread to 40 pages, I want my $100

A big thanks everybody. If you ever come down my way and we meet I'll shout you a beer. How about that. I knew you would come through and continue this for a very very long time. Proof ... much ado about nothing

Originally posted by blueorder

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

"social mental illness"- really, are our mental hospitals and prisons flled with creationists

It doesn't really matter if someone believes in evolution or not (unless you are specifically working in this field)- it makes zilcho difference to life here and now, so this constant demonisation of people for holding such views is over the top

Part of the social mental illness is that it is social and so most people do not recognize it.

A quick Google search shows that in 2006 Americans held pretty much the same view. As time moves on with the baby boomers dying off I'm sure these polls will change dramatically.

Eight out of 10 Americans believe God guided creation in some capacity. A Gallup Poll reveals that 46 percent think God created man in his present form sometime in the past 10,000 years, while 36 percent say man developed over millions of years from lesser life forms, but God guided the process.

Only 13 percent of Americans think mankind evolved with no divine intervention.

“There has been surprisingly little change over the last 24 years in how Americans respond,” pollster Frank Newport said.

Americans still hold faith in divine creation

With the younger generation not so religious, I imagine these polls will start seeing huge changes in a few years.

i have started a new thread regarding my challange to abiogenesis in its own thread here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is generally outside the topic of this thread and I think we have hijacked this topic a bit too much already.

Soul

As a biochemist, I can say this is a great topic of conversation in the labs. Strangely enough, no one bashes one another for being stupid or even ignorant, we all have our college degrees in the sciences so we've all heard the same rabble from nationwide universities, the studies, the news, etc. Religion comes into the discussion on this topic occasionally, but some Christians there are creationists, some are evolutionists, some are hybrid theory, and some simply cannot say until all the data is in. Some people get excited or loud, but not mean-spirited as demonstrated here on ATS. Basically, it's no different in the science community than it is at a coffee shop, but the internet where people can hide behind usernames generates a whole new level of drama. All the best and God bless.