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

Can you be christian and evolutionist at the same time?

In my humble opinion, if you are religious Christian, you can't. If you take Christianity as tradition, rather then philosophy, in that case, yes, you can be Christian and believe in evolution or any other scientific theory.

In place where I came from, we used to say, Christian (or any other religion) by name for people who take religion as part of their tradition and heritage. Those traditionalist are not practicing religion, nor visiting churches as religious people, but they still 'belong' to the group.

In history, those people would be forced to be 'believer', but thankfully, today no one can force them to become one.

I wonder if this 46% is the reason America is lagging so far behind in science and math? Nah!!!

Originally posted by Opfor
I wonder if this 46% is the reason America is lagging so far behind in science and math? Nah!!!

I found this interesting text
www.insidehighered.com...

reply to post by blackcube

Good article, my brother is a chemist and he has been saying the same thing for a while now.

I have perused many of the comments here, and i am surprised that no one has commented on the parallels between modern theory and Genesis.
If you read Genesis, with an understanding of modern cosmological and evolutionary theory you should notice that they do, indeed, agree.
Since this is about evolution, consider the sequence of creation: creatures of the water first, then land and then air, ending with the creation of man. Coincidence?
Perhaps one day, is not an earth day, perhaps God actually set the laws of physics in motion during creation with the intent to eventually result in our creation.
There is much that scholars theorize regarding the meanings in the Bible, just as there is much that scientists theorize regarding the meanings of evidence they see in nature.

Originally posted by bbracken677
I have perused many of the comments here, and i am surprised that no one has commented on the parallels between modern theory and Genesis.
If you read Genesis, with an understanding of modern cosmological and evolutionary theory you should notice that they do, indeed, agree.

I have read Genesis more than one time, and I find your statement lacking any merit.

No, "modern theory" and Genesis do not agree.

I hate this but at the same time I dont. I feel like I want to believe in God but at the same time I want to believe in Evolution as well.

Originally posted by camarosquid
I hate this but at the same time I dont. I feel like I want to believe in God but at the same time I want to believe in Evolution as well.

Simple question that you need answer yourself:

The answer of existence of god must start here:

1- Exist and affect reality
2- Exist but don't affect reality
3- Don't exist.

If your answer is 2. How can you discriminant between 2 and 3? If you still believe in such existence.. you have faith (believing in god without proof)

If you answer is 1: You need find the evidence to back up such claim after all this god affect reality and then we can find evidence of such influence in the material world. No one start worshiping a deity because it doesn't affect the reality.

You must be honest with yourself: Just because you want believe in something... it doesn't make it real.

This thread started off with a straw-man argument, so typical of the evolutionist gate-keepers. No, creationism does not mean the return of the inquisition, and why would the OP even speculate so? Our side can argue fairly and logically, but it will only be thrown back in our faces. Some on this forum really need to look at what they are writing, and think about their own intent.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Our side can argue fairly and logically, but it will only be thrown back in our faces. Some on this forum really need to look at what they are writing, and think about their own intent.

That's funny, because I haven't seen a single creationist present a logical case for creation. I haven't seen a single one that doesn't rely on fallacies and misunderstandings of science. This thread isn't based on a straw man, it's based on a hasty generalization. The poll only asked a few thousand people, not nearly a large enough sample size to suggest 46% of people are creationist.

Originally posted by camarosquid
I hate this but at the same time I dont. I feel like I want to believe in God but at the same time I want to believe in Evolution as well.

How about God in His infinite wisdom invented Evolution? That should work for you. It's just like that story about the policeman, the boat and the helicopter that God sent to save one if His followers, only to be rejected because they expected something more mystical or spectacular.

reply to post by buddhasystem

How about God in His infinite wisdom invented Evolution?

Exactly. And it took 3 billion years of skill-building, one cell at a time, combining with other cells toward a higher design or purpose.

I just finished reading a book by Robert Wright, a philosopher/historian, called NonZero, which discusses just this premise. And it's a very good one. Highly recommended. EDIT: Here's an essay by him, read it, and get a clue. www.nonzero.org...

Either we will all learn to get along, with planetary peace, and an end to strife and suffering, because WE are the culmination of the higher-brain AND sentience, as well as having the GOD-GIVEN capacity to invent and plan ahead....it's all been designed to get us to a "New World Order" of peace. Took a while....let's not blow it.

Or not. Just bomb the bloody hell out of each other for STUPID reasons, destroy the Earth, our home, and take every living thing (ON WHICH WE ALL DEPEND) with us.

Asinine.

Highly recommended reading, along with his other book The Evolution of God. If everyone on these religious forums would read those two books, we could have some REAL discussions. Sadly, too many are afraid to pick up ANY book that isn't outdated and mistranslated "scripture" meant for a small group of people 2000 years ago..

Jesus, people. Jesus wanted us (not WANTS, WANTED -- because now he's DEAD) to get along, to shun greed and power and oppression.

What Is The Problem?!!! Just Freaking BE NICE!

Jesus? Jesus is overrated. I will so much more Hindu deities
You sound like only Jesus is the moral example of "good behavior" in our human history. Come on... he wasn't the first one and he is not the last one. The only thing that made he special was he give himself the title "THE son of god" lol take about prepotency.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Our side can argue fairly and logically, but it will only be thrown back in our faces. Some on this forum really need to look at what they are writing, and think about their own intent.

That's funny, because I haven't seen a single creationist present a logical case for creation. I haven't seen a single one that doesn't rely on fallacies and misunderstandings of science. This thread isn't based on a straw man, it's based on a hasty generalization. The poll only asked a few thousand people, not nearly a large enough sample size to suggest 46% of people are creationist.

You have yet to understand what I am trying to say to you. Are you using a script?

Originally posted by blackcube
Jesus? Jesus is overrated. I will so much more Hindu deities

Edem das Sein.

You sound like only Jesus is the moral example of "good behavior" in our human history.

Who does? You are making this up. Once in a while, even my wife does the right thing. As God is my witness.

The only thing that made he special was he give himself the title "THE son of god" lol take about prepotency.

Mm, no, God gave him that right.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Our side can argue fairly and logically, but it will only be thrown back in our faces. Some on this forum really need to look at what they are writing, and think about their own intent.

That's funny, because I haven't seen a single creationist present a logical case for creation. I haven't seen a single one that doesn't rely on fallacies and misunderstandings of science. This thread isn't based on a straw man, it's based on a hasty generalization. The poll only asked a few thousand people, not nearly a large enough sample size to suggest 46% of people are creationist.

You have yet to understand what I am trying to say to you. Are you using a script?

Present your fair and logical objective argument for a creator. All you have to do is read the top 10 threads in this section and you'll see the constant misinformation that creationists put out there to attack science. I honestly have not seen one that is based on objective science, yet. Maybe you have. Good luck with your presentation. I'm just defending science, don't take it personally. Claims like that need to be backed up.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Our side can argue fairly and logically, but it will only be thrown back in our faces. Some on this forum really need to look at what they are writing, and think about their own intent.

That's funny, because I haven't seen a single creationist present a logical case for creation. I haven't seen a single one that doesn't rely on fallacies and misunderstandings of science. This thread isn't based on a straw man, it's based on a hasty generalization. The poll only asked a few thousand people, not nearly a large enough sample size to suggest 46% of people are creationist.

You have yet to understand what I am trying to say to you. Are you using a script?

Present your fair and logical objective argument for a creator. All you have to do is read the top 10 threads in this section and you'll see the constant misinformation that creationists put out there to attack science. I honestly have not seen one that is based on objective science, yet. Maybe you have. Good luck with your presentation. I'm just defending science, don't take it personally. Claims like that need to be backed up.

edit on 8-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

I suspect, given your posts so far, that you would not admit it if you saw a creationist argument which was based on objective science. I think your ideology would exclude it, but why not surprise us sometime? A rational discussion requires that we be on the same page, which we are not. We are not even in the same library. Anyway, real science should not need amateur defenders. If you are doing this as a job, then you are a professional, and if so, then excuse my presumption.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
I suspect, given your posts so far, that you would not admit it if you saw a creationist argument which was based on objective science. I think your ideology would exclude it, but why not surprise us sometime? A rational discussion requires that we be on the same page, which we are not. We are not even in the same library. Anyway, real science should not need amateur defenders. If you are doing this as a job, then you are a professional, and if so, then excuse my presumption.

If something is scientifically proven, I'll have no problem accepting the concept as reality. Like I said, present your case. Don't insult me. If your argument contains misunderstanding of science, I'll correct them. I deal strictly with facts, not hearsay and guesswork. Evidence matters.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Anyway, real science should not need amateur defenders. If you are doing this as a job, then you are a professional, and if so, then excuse my presumption.

If you argument is so good and solid you probable would be super famous by now because I am sure the religious people would make sure it be boosted to all directions.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Anyway, real science should not need amateur defenders.

Well, real science can use all the help it can get, given the sad state of things we observe here in the US. Part of that is alluded to in the title of the thread, and in general we are way behind other countries when it comes to education. Makes you wonder whether there is a correlation there, doesn't it?

So when I read on ATS that "the proton is a black hole", "this car can run on pure water" or "twin towers were brought down by interferometry", or any other such quackery, any sane person, including what you call "amateurs", has 100% right to point out that it's just that, quackery.