Was Darwin Wrong?

[Bullypulpit]

Such is the title of an artical in the November "<i>National Geographic</i>". In that article they cite a phone survey in which 45% of US adults surveyed believe, despite the prponderance of evidence to the contrary, that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time in the last 10,000 years or so."

I do believe the editors at Geographic got the title wrong. It should have read, "<i>Just how ignorant can Americans be?</i>"

 

[dmp]

Such is the title of an artical in the November "<i>National Geographic</i>". In that article they cite a phone survey in which 45% of US adults surveyed believe, despite the preponderance of evidence to the contrary, that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time in the last 10,000 years or so."

I do believe the editors at Geographic got the title wrong. It should have read, "<i>Just how ignorant can Americans be?</i>"

...uh...perhaps because, by preponderance of the evidence, creation/divine design is 'MORE' likely.. I thought you were supposed to be smart? Look 'honestly' at both theories. Try it.

 

[Mr. P]

...uh...perhaps because, by preponderance of the evidence, creation/divine design is 'MORE' likely... ... Look 'honestly' at both theories. Try it.

That is a matter of opinion, D.
If what you say is true (fact), wouldn't the "More likely" be reflected in the survey, 51% not 45%?

Or are you agreeing with Bullys' statement, "I do believe the editors at Geographic got the title wrong". It should have read, "Just how ignorant can Americans be?"

 

[MrMarbles]

The theory of evolution has un-denyable evidene supporting it. Couldn't God have created the Earth with the intentions of Man evolving out of it?

 

[dmp]

The theory of evolution has un-denyable evidene supporting it. Couldn't God have created the Earth with the intentions of Man evolving out of it?

Not really - there is 'evidence' of micro-evolution...but very little evidence - scientific evidence of 'macro-evolution'...

If God had simply 'started the process' he'd not have indicated he created man 'in his own image'.

 

[Mr. P]

If God had simply 'started the process' he'd not have indicated he created man 'in his own image'.

opinion.

 

[dmp]

opinion.

God's opinion? I'm relating 'scripture'.

The entire case for EITHER boils down to 'opinion' too - the opinion of scientists fall in both camps. I happen to believe those who look at the evidence objectively, and conclude there is no other reasonable conclusion than things were 'made' - not just 'happened'.

 

[Zhukov]

If God had simply 'started the process' he'd not have indicated he created man 'in his own image'.

If he knew for certain beforehand what the outcome would ultimately be, why not?

 

[dmp]

If he knew for certain beforehand what the outcome would ultimately be, why not?

I could speculate... (shrug).


However, looking at the hard evidence...hard complete evidence, not some 'from part of a tooth, we made this entire skelleton' evidence...Divine Design is simply more plausable. There have been numerous posts on the 'theory' on the forum. Unfortunately I'm not intellectually-equipped to debate the subject as well as it should be debated.

 

[Zhukov]

I consider the existence of retained genetic sequences across the spectrum of living things 'hard evidence' for Darwin's theories. To me the fact that a fruit fly has some of the exact same DNA segments as you, or I, or a plant, is about as clear as it gets.

Creationists say it points to common design.

 

[Hobbit]

I consider the existence of retained genetic sequences across the spectrum of living things 'hard evidence' for Darwin's theories. To me the fact that a fruit fly has some of the exact same DNA segments as you, or I, or a plant, is about as clear as it gets.

Creationists say it points to common design.

And I say it points to necessity. Almost all of these DNA commonalities are on the cellular level. Do you have any idea how much DNA it takes just to tell a cell how to make more of itself and to metabolise food? The sheer amount of data is almost incomprehensible to the human brain. I mean, there's an entire chromosome (roughly 4-5% of our DNA) devoted entirely to gender. Contrary to popular belief, only a tiny portion of DNA is actually devoted to things we notice, things like hair and eye color, voice, height, etc. The vast majority is devoted to cellular and bodily functions, mostly cellular.

Oh, and if anybody's still arguing with Bully, I'd say it looks like a drive-by post.

 

[dmp]

finally...a 'smart' pro-creation person here

 

[nakedemperor]

And I say it points to necessity. Almost all of these DNA commonalities are on the cellular level. Do you have any idea how much DNA it takes just to tell a cell how to make more of itself and to metabolise food? The sheer amount of data is almost incomprehensible to the human brain. I mean, there's an entire chromosome (roughly 4-5% of our DNA) devoted entirely to gender. Contrary to popular belief, only a tiny portion of DNA is actually devoted to things we notice, things like hair and eye color, voice, height, etc. The vast majority is devoted to cellular and bodily functions, mostly cellular.

Oh, and if anybody's still arguing with Bully, I'd say it looks like a drive-by post.

I'm not sure why the argument 'we can't understand the complexities of DNA' lends credence to the fallacy of Darwinism.

 

[deaddude]

I mean, there's an entire chromosome (roughly 4-5% of our DNA) devoted entirely to gender. Contrary to popular belief, only a tiny portion of DNA is actually devoted to things we notice

4-5% Is roughly 1/20-1/25 of your genetic material. That is quite a bit. so are you telling me you never noticed your gender? jk

 

[deaddude]

Divine Design is simply more plausable.

Anything becomes more plausable if you aknowledge the existance of omnipotent being. The only variable is whether your omnipotent being gives anough of a rip to do anything.

Once one assumes the existance of an omnipotent being plausability is out the window. All posibilities and even impossibities can be achieved simply by the will of the omnipotent being.

 

[Merlin1047]

It is undeniable that man has evolved to a certain degree. But evolutionists have found their holy grail to be elusive. They have never established that link between man and the apes.

Without getting long-winded about it, in order to buy into the evolutionist theory in full you have to believe:

1. That the universe was created by the explosion of a huge ball of gas. There's no explanation of the origin of that ball of gas, it just happened to be there. When it exploded, suns, moons and planets condensed and ordered themselves magically.

2. The earth was simply an aggregate of rock. It had no water, no atmosphere and no life. Yet somehow oceans formed - either from the solid rock or from ice. (I guess the ice came from that same gas cloud).

3. Over time, the oceans (which formed from either rock or ice on a planet which accidentally formed out of wandering rocks created by an explosion of a huge ball of gas ball which came out of nowhere) created an atmosphere.

4. Somehow, in this sterile and lifeless hunk of space junk some sort of single celled fungus took life. (No clue how that happened. Maybe the planet got athlete's foot or crotch rot.)

5. That slimy, single celled fungus evolved eventually into man.


What I do not understand is how any thinking person can look upon the function of the human hand, or admire the artitistic products of the human mind, or walk into a forest and wonder at the complexity of life or gaze into the heavens at the majesty of the universe and still deny the existence of a Creator.

Ball of gas indeed.

 

[Mr. P]

...
What I do not understand is how any thinking person can look upon the function of the human hand, or admire the artitistic products of the human mind, or walk into a forest and wonder at the complexity of life or gaze into the heavens at the majesty of the universe and still deny the existence of a Creator.

Me either, but I still believe the theory of evolution is valid.

 

[Mainframe]

So, basically, the arguement is... We cant understand how things came to be, so we think someone or something created us?


How about we stop being so arrogant as to think we can possibly fathom the mysteries of the universe? We are not significant in the sense that we feel we are .. just a piece of the gigantic puzzle. Although since we are conscious beings, we feel we are special and owed something (like eternal life).

Explain this one:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=753&e=1&u=/ap/20041027/ap_on_sc/dwarf_cavewoman

Did god make a midget colony after himself? Or was it a little joke he wanted to make and when he got sick of em, he made them all "disappear"?

Discuss.

 

[dmp]

so..they find the skeleton of what could be a child...or a pigmy-type person, and it's a breakthrough? Weird.

There's still no evidence, or such little evidence as to be ridiculous, that humans evolved from apes, or ape-like creatures.

 

[dmp]

So, basically, the arguement is... We cant understand how things came to be, so we think someone or something created us?

So basically Evolutionists say 'We refuse to acknowledge Creation/divine Design simply because we don't like the implied conclusions', thus, we must have 'evolved' from nothing, into something?