Posted on 12/20/2010 7:19:04 AM PST by SeekAndFind
If you're in a room of 100 people, odds are likely about 40 think God created humans about 10,000 years ago, part of a philosophy called creationism, according to a Gallup poll reported Friday (Dec. 17). That number is slightly lower than in years past and down from a high of 47 percent in both 1993 and 1999.
And 38 percent of Americans, the poll estimates, believe God guided the process that brought humans from "cavemen" to today's incarnation over millions of years, while 16 percent think humans evolved over millions of years, without any divine intervention.
This secular view, while a relatively small number, is up from 9 percent in 1982, according to Gallup.
Like most American attitudes, Gallup wrote, views on human origins have political consequences. For instance, debates and clashes over which explanations for human origins should be included in school textbooks have persisted for decades. And with 40 percent of Americans continuing to hold to an anti-evolutionary belief about the origin of humans, it is highly likely that these types of debates will continue, according to Gallup.
The findings also stand in stark contrast to another announcement Friday, this one by John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The memo was issued to federal science agencies to guide them in making rules to ensure scientific integrity.
The Gallup results are based on telephone interviews conducted Dec. 10-12 with a random sample of 1,019 adults, ages 18 and older, living in the continental United States. The findings were weighted by gender, age, race, education, religion and phone lines to make the sample nationally representative.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
God reveals himself in the Bible AND in nature. Learning “HOW HE DID IT”, is worth while since it can teach us more about His nature.
How He Did is is left as an exercise for the student - the answer is not in The Book.
Well maybe you changed the memo - before you I’d always heard/read it as:
“The leading EVOLUTIONISTS say not to use that argument anymore because it has been so thoroughly refuted it just makes them look bad when it’s used.”
> “I think God has revealed that the young earth theory is erroneous.”
.
You figure that God has Alzheimers, huh?
.
From a room full of democrats..but I like your answer better..LOL!
My beef is mostly with scientists who ask "How did this come about?" and then begin their investigation by saying, "Well, we know God doesn't exist, so ..."
You know what's ironic about the radioisotope dating methods? They rely on such completely unrealistic starting assumptions that there is no possible way they can credibly be considered to be accurate at all. In fact, we KNOW from reproducible scientific experimentation that the assumptions of "no starting levels of argon" in zircons (dated using the K-Ar dating method) are verifiably false.
But, "scientists" use these methods and numbers because they give the "right" numbers.
Nevermind that there are documented cases of basalts and other rocks that we KNOW cannot be more than a century or so old (because we know when the eruption occurred, etc.) that give false positives of being tens or hundreds of millions of years old.
Sorry, evos, but radioisotope dating, at least as it is presently employed, is as uncredible as the "global warming" mythology.
“One of the three scientists who cracked the Human Genome had this to say about those who think creation was an accident....”
Dennis Prager puts it this way:
We are not just animals: Judeo-Christian values part XV http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2005/06/14/we_are_not_just_animals_judeo-christian_values_part_xv
There is a new movement among some to find a spirituality in science without God. True insanity.
Time is just one of God’s creations. He’s not bound by it anymore than he’s bound by space.
> “They have no credible explanation for the approx 3 billion lines of living code that compose a single strand of DNA.”
.
It ‘just happened,’ don’tcha know!
.
Frank Tipler's The Physics of Immortality is on my upcoming reading list. It'll be interesting to see if he goes that route, or tries to mesh more traditional religious ideas with physics.
Virtually any form of spirituality is acceptable these days -- as long as it doesn't include Jehovah.
John Paul II is dead and gone, but the truth is still there in Genesis for all to see.
God preserves what is true, and buries what is wrong.
.
This is one root of our problem. If the federal government would stick to only what it is supposed to do, there wouldn't be a "political consequence" to belief about origins. What possible difference should how we got here make in how the federal government does it's job?
It's only because government wants to insert itself into the details of our lives that the details of our lives become "politically important".
Imagine that, a speed reading troll!
Yep!
http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use
The Second Law is very specific, a set of mathematical equations. It controls the amount of useful work that heat can do in an isolated system. The Earth is not an isolated system. But, basically, the Second Law deals with equations. You’re just babbling if you can’t produce an equation showing that Evolution violates it.
> “Time is just one of God’s creations. He’s not bound by it anymore than he’s bound by space.”
.
Absolutely true!
He created time when he created the physical universe, and it says in Genesis that he expanded them from Earth.
Science is a tool. Anyone can use it regardless of your world view. I get annoyed by the alarmists who see Creationism as a threat to science. I don’t share that alarm to say the least.
Although I don’t agree with important tenants of Creationism, I don’t see that it prevents Creationist scientists from doing good science. Many of them are excellent scientists.
>> Once again we’re at the argument of a metaphorical day or a physical day. <<
Genesis 1:5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
For that to have been longer then a 24 hour day and then for the revolution of the earth to have changed to become a 24 hour day would have caused some serious problems. Look it up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.