Shocking poll reveals that 37% of Americans believe in creationism

a reply to: ashisnotanidiot

I don't disagree.

No replies to my point about dragonflies?

originally posted by: randomuser2034

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Irishhaf

This is why I do not really debate about the origins of the universe and such anymore.
I'll come out, and say, I am an atheist, but just as Sagan had come to such a conclusion, I too did many years ago.
The debate always ends in two ways, you either believe the universe is eternal or there was or is an eternal God of sorts. Pick one.

Very soon God will prove his existence. The proof is there for anyone willing to observe it. And he can and does revea l himself to those whom he wishes. But there will be a day in the very near future where no human alive will remain an atheist.

I agree, and probably, if I may add, the only time humanity will ever see the true manifestation of God/supernatural being/higher deity/Allah/Jehovah or whatever fancy name of desire, is when we all forget our differences and be united in spiritual purpose

a reply to: MrGashler

You said science doesn't deal in facts but if you see my link from a peer reviewed scientific publication the first line of the abstract is: Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Science established facts but is what you consider fact to be the problem. If you think a fact is the 'absolute' truth and can never be challenged then you are mistaken.

Facts are difficult to be challenged.

The planet isn't the center of the solar system but we know as fact that planets move around the sun in elliptical orbits.

Now there problem comes when creationists try to doubt everything including the meaning of the words to push their wild claims.

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: ashisnotanidiot

"CORRECTION: Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life’s origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes."

This. I am no Creationist and have often decided their nonsense but, I do have some problems with evolution in its widest application.

Apparently fish developed lungs over millions of years or whatever when their ponds or lakes dried up.

But, if a pond or lake dries up, the fish all die?

And, can anyone explain the life cycle of dragonflies , that spend years under water as something that looks like something out of Alien, before morphing into a completely different creature that flies, brilliantly?

Sorry, but this has always puzzled me, and no, I don't have any answers.

I dunno.

What I do know is it is just as dangerous to be so single-mindedly blind for science as is to be so single-mindedly for creationism.

Especially when creationism is not incompatible with science.

If evolution is true then creationism cannot be true. We know that evolution is true and hence incompatible with science.

The new tendency of guided evolution when people understand that their religious views are not true and that evolution is true is an attempt to agree with science but keep their belief in God.

We discussed this earlier.

Creationism doesn't involve evolution either guided or unguided.

a reply to: Venkuish1

Because you say so?

originally posted by: Station27

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Most Christians do NOT believe that the story is a literal one. The fundamentalists tend to (Baptist, Church of Christ, etc). But the vast majority of Christians do NOT believe the earth is 6,000 years old, that it was created in six days, that there were talking snakes, etc. Just like the vast majority do not believe in Noahs Ark or that the Tower of Babel is where language came from, or that Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days and got spit out, etc. Most Christians do not read those as literal history stories but instead as myths to teach about some aspect of God.

I think you're wrong about this, and you're also right about this. True, I have seen some Baptists who believe the Earth is literally 6,000 old, or however many years it adds up to be exactly. But if they would re-read Genesis, they would see for themselves it's much, much older than that. And I think this is the exact point where science and religion clash - and they don't see the reason themselves.

Some Christians believe that in Genesis chapter 1, it tells the story of how God created everything. And then they say that chapter 2 is just going into further detail of the creation of men on the "sixth day" from chapter 1. But if they would read a little further, they could plainly see that's not right or possible. According to that people believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, when Cain killed Abel in Genesis chapter 4, there were only 4 people on the Earth. But in verse 15 God puts a mark on Cain so that whoever found him would not kill him. My point is who are the people that make up the "whoever" that might find him? In verse 25, Adam and Eve have their third child, a son named Seth. But - in the previous verses of chapter 4, verses 16 and 17, Cain goes to the "Land of Nod, east of the Garden of Eden and takes a wife." Who are these people in the land of Nod? It really clashes with the idea that Adam and Eve and their 3 sons were the first people on Earth. The woman that Cain took for his wife couldn't have been his sister, because he didn't have any sisters as that point. There were no other women but Eve, according to the people who believe that Adam was the first man created. Seth was clearly born after Cain took a wife, so this proves the wife he took was not related to him.

To understand this, we have to go back to Genesis chapter 1 where, on the sixth day, God created men, (plural), to be masters of the Earth and have dominion over everything, and to be fruitful and multiply over the whole Earth. Then in chapter two, he creates Adam, and then Eve, and places them in a confined area known as the ''Garden of Eden." These two passages are clearly talking about two different sets of people.

So how long of a period of time did Genesis chapter 1 last? The Bible speaks in several passages that, to God, a day can be as a thousand years, and a thousand years could be as long as a day. How long did the seven days in Genesis chapter 1 last? Nobody knows for sure, but it had to have been an extended period of time for there to have been enough time for these other populations to flourish that the Bible talks about. It clearly states there were people in the land of Nod. How many other places were there with people in them? Cain even runs away and starts his own city, so it must have been pretty common for cities to exist at that time.

I believe that Genesis chapter 1 lasted long enough to include the periods science has discovered through archeology. The periods of ice ages, dinosaurs, etc. All the time needed for "science" to be satisfied with. But, what about other "human" types such as Neanderthals that science has discovered? The Bible, as well as other ancient sources, including writings by the Sumerians, tells us about these things as well.

The Bible calls them "Nephilim" and how they abducted women for their experiments. The Nephilim are, of course, Satan and his followers. The Sumerians called them "gods from the sky" who made creatures to be their perfect miners for gold. (Which they needed for their "spaceships.") I'll say this, but it's really a story for another time: I believe Neanderthals were the beings these "gods from the sky" created to be their miners. They have brow ridges which exactly correspond with the length of the bill on a mining helmet and Neanderthal remains have been found in 5 places which also correspond with ancient gold mining sites. Did Satan know how to work with DNA? Apparently he did. Now, that's science through and through. And they say there's no science in The Bible....

And all that is according to Moses who existed between 14th-13th century BCE. A good fabble with valuable lessons to draw. Former Pope Benedict admitted to a congregation that Genesis is fabble which scientifically could have been subject to human error on the part of the author, Moses.

originally posted by: randomuser2034

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: randomuser2034

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: randomuser2034

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: randomuser2034

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: randomuser2034

originally posted by: Venkuish1
a reply to: randomuser2034

What is scientifically accurate?
That the planet and its inhabitants were created in six days or all the other claims made about life, different species, the planet and the 'heavens'...

Many Christians don't even accept the claims made in the Bible just like another poster who has replied to me in the last page.

There are no heavens by the way.
The works wasn't created in six days. These are false and debunked religious beliefs.

I debunked everything you just said in my post above. You didn't even take the time to give it a cursory glance. As your question was already answered before you asked.

And that is how sincere you are.

All you did is to copy paste passages from your religious book and this isn't evidence for the any of the claims made by religionists and creationists. You need independent and unbiased sources that don't propagate the dogma and the religious beliefs you subscribe to.

If you think you can use the Bible to 'debunk' evolution and cosmology you are very mistaken. I am sure you have an extended version of what debunking means.

The world wasn't created in six days... That's what we mean a debunked claim.

I didn't copy and paste anything. Just using common sense. Like I said, your questions were answered, rationally, factually, with proof and full of evidence.

You come across as extremely narrow and close-minded.

Even using the word "creationists" to lump all people that believe in creation. The creationist view is narrow and extreme and stupidly wrong. But so is the other end of the spectrum.

The correct understanding of Genesis 1 is not that of a creationist's viewpoint. But you do not even know that another exists, and will not even accept that one does. And that is due to the fetters that bind your eyes shut. The light is there but even though you imagine you see you remain blind. And you think you hear but you don't get the sense of it and the eyes of your mind be enlightened.

You copy paste passages from the Bible to argue your point. That leads to a circular argument and circular logic. The Bible cannot be used as evidence for the claims made by creationists.

Look, I'm willingly to give you the benefit of the doubt. You are having to juggle answering a lot of people at the same time. And the mind can't focus when you do that. Please take the time to read what I wrote you originally. And actually think about it before you respond. And then respond to what I actually originally wrote you.

The passage of Bible that I quoted has its purpose as well. It actually takes time to meditate on the questions being asked. Later I will reveal that to you. Because even scientists today cannot answer those questions with all their advancements and knowledge. And that was only the beginning of the questions that shows us our place.

You can't reference the Bible I am afraid. It propagates the Christian dogma and makes religious assertions that have no basis.

The world wasn't created in six days and humans were not created in six days. Everything else is part of the narrative if you haven't realised it. I am impressed you reference the Bible as an unbiased source. The Bible does what it does = dogma

I think this is the 3rd time you said the same thing.

You are still ignoring what I originally wrote you. I have already debunked that nonsense you keep spewing. Why don't you deal with what I explained to you? You keep ignoring all of it. Why is that?

No I don't see how have you done it. You have just copy pasted passages from the Bible to argue about God and the creation of the world.

Far from debunking evolution or what I have said. Unless debunking in your language means stating religious dogma as fact...

You still haven't dealt with a single thing that was brought to your attention. You have ignored it in its entirety. And the fact that you refuse to even acknowledge that you were answered with rational reasoning shows you are not sincere, and you are close-minded.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you read what I wrote and thought about it logically and can't deny it. So you keep repeating yourself and going off on things that had nothing to do with what I was revealing to you.

You can't sell anything bible-related to Venquish I'm afraid. You two have reached an impasse and will have to agree on a cease-fire. Two good points from two conflicting schools of thought

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Venkuish1

Some people do not feel the need to find what they deem as truth beyond what's written in their chosen scripture.
I'm not saying they're dumb or anything, but it just seems they don't want to investigate the natural universe as much as you or I.

That is what perplexes me with organized religious texts. You take the ancient text on "as is" basis and are not allowed to invoke reason or even question anything therein

originally posted by: MrGashler
You think of facts as mutable. Cool. That's a very unstable foundation to build a logical understanding on, but you do you.
I'm sorry you find my fascination with the use of the word "fact" so boring. I'll be sure to consult you next time about my fascinations to make sure they're entertaining enough for you.

I left it out because I misread your point and I didn't read all 21 pages to catch up, so I stuck to the main topic you addressed. So either they are somewhat mutable or NOTHING is a fact and we just remove that word from our vocabulary. I think it was your post that said even 99.999999999999% is still not a fact, so in your case, a fact is an impossibility. I suggest we use that word as a short cut than a long-ass statement to suggest a point has some validity.

I thoroughly enjoyed that last bit though, because we are in agreement. "You can't disprove that God created man" is an absolutely terrible point to hitch an argument on, and the inability to disprove it doesn't make it true. I absolutely agree with you. So.....why are you arguing with me again?

I'm not... really... At least you come with a point.

But I can paste a passage from the bible that is proof of God..

a reply to: Venkuish1

I am stating a fact not making a claim.
Evolution is a fact. This directly implies creationism is false.

Hold on there, Sparky.

Evolution is NOT a fact as evidenced by it's moniker in any decent science magazine or documentary.

It's referred to as the "Theory of Evolution".

It is a very well supported theory and is most likely a fact but unless/until we see something *actually* evolve in front of our eyes, it remains a theory.

Just like the theory of natural selection. Again, well supported theory, but still a theory.

Pardon the pun but I just wanted to get the facts straight,

a reply to: SchrodingersRat

Is anyone going to explain dragonflies?

God is real. If you're a parent and see the miracle of your child being born, then God is real.

Did God create DNA?

He created the Heavens and Earth in 7 days, but what does God consider a "Day"?

Just my opinion, peace-out.

originally posted by: SchrodingersRat

Evolution is NOT a fact as evidenced by it's moniker in any decent science magazine or documentary.

It's referred to as the "Theory of Evolution".

It is a very well supported theory and is most likely a fact but unless/until we see something *actually* evolve in front of our eyes, it remains a theory.

What I find interesting is that evolution can be either non-intelligent or intelligent design. I'm not sure why religious people just do not say that evolution is the tool God used to evolve life from the spark he provided.

Evolution does not try and explain the start of life, it just explains how life can change and what internal and external forces affect it.

If religious people don't have evolution then it is an instantaneous event as all life popped into the world all at once but they are unwilling to say that, so we get nothing from them.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

He created the Heavens and Earth in 7 days, but what does God consider a "Day"?

Just my opinion, peace-out.

about 2 billion years per day from my calculations...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: DBCowboy

He created the Heavens and Earth in 7 days, but what does God consider a "Day"?

Just my opinion, peace-out.

about 2 billion years per day from my calculations...

Crap, figured He needed the rest.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: SchrodingersRat

Is anyone going to explain dragonflies?

What about them?

a reply to: Nicrux

You are most welcome and at liberty to question the texts. That's being human, to question, and be skeptical. But, you learn to not over do it.
What I wa getting at, was I accept people who find comfort and truth in religious scripture, it's not my place to tell others how they take in and metabolize the natural universe.

And to drag in another post you replied to, yes, I agree, some people do indeed view the universe as God, an eternal force. Which brings up a whole new can of worms to understand that sort of thinking, which in includes crazy thought processes such as alchemical epiphanies and such.

Humans are made of the same stuff as stars, and kelp, just that stuff found a way to congregate in different ways, it doesn't matter how that stuff all started off, or has always been, that's the point most of us need to get into our heads, everything is connected. Just my take.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: ashisnotanidiot

I don't disagree.

No replies to my point about dragonflies?

I don't have an answer for you about dragonflies.

Why do some animals lay eggs and have to defend them from predators, and why do some animals incubate internal eggs until they are born?

Surely, reptiles and birds would have evolved by now, since they are some of the oldest creatures on the planet, right? I mean, it's far safer for their offspring to be incubated internally to term rather than externally.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: SchrodingersRat

Evolution is NOT a fact as evidenced by it's moniker in any decent science magazine or documentary.

It's referred to as the "Theory of Evolution".

It is a very well supported theory and is most likely a fact but unless/until we see something *actually* evolve in front of our eyes, it remains a theory.

What I find interesting is that evolution can be either non-intelligent or intelligent design. I'm not sure why religious people just do not say that evolution is the tool God used to evolve life from the spark he provided.

Evolution does not try and explain the start of life, it just explains how life can change and what internal and external forces affect it.

If religious people don't have evolution then it is an instantaneous event as all life popped into the world all at once but they are unwilling to say that, so we get nothing from them.

Some religious people wholly accept the theory of evolution.

Why do we pretend every Christian is a hardcore evangelical 6-day literalist?

Last I checked, there were hundreds of denominations, with varying degrees of conservative and/or liberal viewpoints.

Hell, some of us "Christians" don't even believe in the divinity of Christ.

All those enlightment age scientists who basically created modern science were trying to prove the existence of God, not disprove it.

And again, the big bang THEORY was created by a Catholic priest....