We share 99% of our DNA with chimps. I wonder what the probability of that happening of random chance is?
I'm fairly well in to the Christian community (I work at the largest Christian TV Network in the world) and I know A LOT of Christians that believe in Evolution that was put in to motion by God. Actually, a whole lot more than you would think. When thinking of the 7-Day Creation, take this for consideration: But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day - 2 Peter 3:8 God transcends time - 7 days to him could be an eternity for us. We also have to remember that the bible was passed down orally for centuries and many things have been lost in translation. We have to be very careful when taking the bible literally - since it was written down by man, who by nature is fallible.
Agree. *Really* stupid question, given the options. A lot of rigorous scientists would vote "with God" somehow involved in, setting up the mechanism, and don't tell me they don't believe in evolution. That would be my vote. To say "God has no part in the process" you have to be a complete atheist, which has always, to me, been nonsensical. There's not enough evidence for that point of view. God but some of these poll questions drive me crazy.
Also . . .you have to understand .. . explaining evolution to someone 2000 yrs ago . . . would be like explaining it to a 2 yr old They have no concept of germs much less DNA How to explain evolution without first explaining genetics I told a friend once. . . IF a Submarine picked up a sailor from 100 BC How would that sailor describe it .. . . he has no real concept of a MACHINE IT was something oblong shaped that came out of the water and ate him uuummm . . he might describe it as a big fricking fish . . because that is all he could relate it too . .. something seemingly alive in the water *shrug* Rocket River I can be overly imaginative. . but we have to not only view the bible for what it says . . but who its intended audience was as well. . .
Consider the contrary position... why does it require guidance for a speciation or mutation to occur? Experiments has proven that you don't need a guiding hand for these things, This is where science separates itself from mysticism. You provide an explanation that cannot be proven or has no factual evidence and you ask why people are uncomfortable?
His thought may be that we evolved alongside chimps rather than from them - which is actually not an unheard of theory. Me personally, I'm pretty sure we evolved from something..just not sure exactly what - that may be why we still can't find the missing link. May be apes, maybe not. That part is the biggest conjecture in the theory. We do know that animals evolve to some extent which is why we are slowly losing our little toe, and the average height of a human is about 4 inches taller than it was a few of hundred years ago.
Well considering I believe in God, random chance has nothing to do with it. I was making a generalization. Obviously we didn't evolve from modern primates, if we did whey would they still be primates?
How is the 15% statistic remotely surprising? Only about 15% of Americans are secularist...OPs thread title and surprise is misleading. It is shameful that only 47% of people accept evolution though. I have a basic intelligence test that I utilize for people: do you accept evolution and do you accept that anthropogenic global warming is occurring? If someone answers no to either of these, they are automatically categorized into the "this person is a moron" section of my mind.
Very true - and that is where most people fail when reading the bible - by not understanding the concepts,thoughts, and customs of the people from those times. Something as simple as how man at the time wrote things like genealogies is completely lost on us today. At the time they often skipped generations of people they thought were insignificant to a timeline - which is why there are conflicting timelines of Rulers in historical documents of the middle east. Over the years we've had to compile lists of early monarchies and rulers from several sources to get the entire lists of who ruled in ancient times (and I'm not talking about biblical sources here, but sources that even atheists would consider real)
People love to be right, don't they. Thread title is misleading and discounting those that believe in a mixture of the two shows a lack of willingness to respect other beliefs than your own preventing any real dialogue.
Not necessarily. That is not how evolution is explained. If you have a certain species that have X number of individuals who exhibit a certain trait, and they only interbred with individuals with the same traits, eventually they will branch out and form a new species and the other ones who chose not do so, will keep on living and reproduce and populate.
My issue is 2 fold. 1. Just because you cannot detect the guidene does not mean it is not there. For centuries.. ***** fell down because of gravity . . . and no one knew why . . they fact that they didn't know does not negate the fact that gravity does exist. 2. We don't guide every molecule to bond in a cake . . but we do set the conditions so the cake can be produced .. . . would you then say the cake happens without guidence since we don't guide every microinteraction??? I consider you concept a part of the religion of man which states IF A MAN CANNOT SEE IT, CANNOT EXPLAIN IT, CANNOT DO IT, NO ONE CAN . . . AND THERE FORE IT MUST BE LUCK AND RANDOM OCCURANCE. I cannot beleive that . . . by your logic . .. a thousand years ago . . . . you would have argued that it was ridiculous for some tiny creatures in our blood and bodies to kill us . . . There was not evidence based on their tech at the time . .to prove that germs existed . . .there were no microscopes . . . Just because you have better tech . . .does not mean we still SEE everything Rocket River
The problem with this train of thought is that it can you can use this to justify anything. Rocket River, can you give me an argument, based on this train of thought, that would disprove an invisible pirate ship that I believe is floating around my head right now? If I believe this to be the case, then by your logic, that's still rational to believe. The best answer, in my mind, is to say that something doesn't exist, but it doesn't mean it can't exist. For example, you probably would be crazy to believe that tiny creatures existed in your body a thousand years ago if you didn't come to it through some experimentation/evidence. So that's why when someone asks me to explain my religious beliefs, I say that god doesn't exist. It doesn't mean that he can't exist in the future, or that I can't be proven wrong, it just means for all intents and purposes right now, he doesn't exist. Otherwise, we'd have to accept any claim to be rational because we can't disprove it.
It's not necessarily absolutist. As I stated before, if you believe in god, it's not unreasonable to believe evolution is guided by him. I do think it's moronic, however, to ignore the evidence out there for evolution AT ALL.
Hmmm...so... 15% of folks are "uncomfortable" believing in an unseeable, unprovable entity that guided the process of our existence. 47% of folks are "uncomfortable" and refuse to acknowledge the facts regarding the process by which we came into existance that may occur with or without any "guidance". 47% ignores/avoids sound scientific facts, but believes in your God, and the 15% embraces sound scientific facts, but may or may not believe in your God. What makes you think that 15% is uncomfortable? I would imagine they feel quite comfortable in their decision. Just another displace of emotions from ol' man River perhaps?
Ridiculous. Giving examples of undiscovered physical occurences to explain (by analogy) unseeable, unproveable religious ones....AGAIN. Stop already man. Hey I have an idea...why don't you give us that analogy of "we didn't know God's guidance existed until occurence "X" happened and now we know"...oh wait...THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED!
