Thanks SeekAndFind.
Posted on 10/04/2017 7:06:08 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Of all the Western nations, Americans are the least likely to believe in evolution, according to a recent survey. Still, some applauded when even more recent statistics apparently showed that support for creationism had dropped below 40% in America. Still, at 38%, one has to wonder how precise those numbers are.
America has had a history of fundamentalist Protestantism. The Puritans were not like the wavering Anglicans whom they fled. Nor would they take suggestions from the Pope. This streak has informed our country from its inception. And, contrary to present disdain, that influence was often for the good. A substantial number of those fundamentalists, especially Baptists, supported the American Revolution.
New polling data show that for the first time in a long time there’s a notable decline in the percentage of Americans -- including Christians -- who hold to the “Young Earth” creationist view that humankind was created in its present form in the past 10,000 years, evolution playing no part.
According to a Gallup poll conducted in May, the portion of the American public taking this position now stands at 38%, a new low in Gallup’s periodic surveys. -- USA Today
However, it has to be remembered that what has been reduced is literal creationism. A lot of Americans are otherwise bible-believing Christians who just understand the opening chapters of Genesis to be metaphorical. They otherwise accept Jesus, the Trinity, and the atoning work on the cross.
Europeans, by contrast, have chiefly embraced standard evolution as established fact. Even formerly religious Ireland is way ahead of the USA in acceptance of naturalistic evolution.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
That is exactly my point. How is “evolution [] a testable scientific theory” when it can take more than 20 million years? How do we test that? We can’t possibly replicate it. And what about the Ancient Aliens? What is their role over the past 20 million years?
“not nothing certainly.
Yes, this is exactly my point.
“ Evolution doesn’t deal with abiogenesis. It deals only with life. It can’t be held responsible for things not under its province.”
It can’t be held responsible for anything, really. So sure.
Hm...I have never seen anything just come into being miraculously. As in I have never looked out in my driveway and, without explanation, a new car is sitting there.
As far as we know, absolutely nothing happens without some type of force. The creative force behind the universe is none other than God Himself. If not, from where did the universe come?
Thanks SeekAndFind.
Proud creationist and taught all five kids to be.
I’d like to see the demographics in that poll.
Regardless, even if it’s 1 percent, Persevero contra mundum.
God does not lie.
I always considered “Evolution” to be one of those elective liberal arts type sciences. Kind of like the idiots on TV talking about how they “discovered their real culture” and are oh-so-happy because they had their DNA tested and now know all the places their ancestors came from - what real good does that sort of “knowledge” do one when it comes to every day life?
I was taught Evolution in Catholic School.
I remember asking the Jesuit priest if God spoke to Neanderthals. He said he didn’t think so. I asked why. He said they hadn’t evolved enough to understand.
THAT is a Jesuit answer.
If you want a lesson in how evolution works, talk to the infection control folks at your local hospital :-)
Hmm. Will they be teaching that the sky is a metal disk?
Creationism has done nothing but hurt conservatives.
Does your ‘soul/spirit intellect’ also evolve? Or is it the same as was when created? The flesh body of humans was by design to house the ‘soul/spirit intellect’ for this flesh journey... When do you think all souls and their spirit intellect were created? The Bible does NOT give a ‘date’, but this earth demonstrates that it is millions, perhaps billions of years ago... Like God asked Job, where were you when He did this or that? What is demonstrable is the ‘flesh’ age of humans, is no more than 12 - 14 thousand years ago.
The Legos represent atoms within a bacterium. Each one has a purpose and has been combined with other atoms to make molecules, those molecules are combined to make proteins. Each one has a specific job. Their complexity is unimaginable making a 747 look like a tinker toy.
There is no known provable process building such things or improving such things. It is an imagined wish/hope/religion of the idolater that life came into existence by itself.
***Atomic physics introduces us to isotopes which give us a means to measure through measuring radioactive decay, to date accurately rock and the fossils it contains. ***
JimSEA.... A couple of things on this.
First of all this has nothing to do with the validity of the theory of evolution.
Second.... the only thing that is accurate about radiometric dating is the measurement of the parent & daughter elements. Everything else is conjecture. To use Potassium/Argon as an example... you can’t know how much of each was there at the formation of the rock, you only know how much is there now.
You also can’t know if the decay rate has been constant, whether anything has leached into the sample, whether any of the Argon has diffused out of the sample.... it’s not knowable.
Try answering this question:
An 8 oz. glass contains 50% ice and 50% water. How long did it take to get that way?
Obviously this is unanswerable, there’s too much that you don’t know... room temperature variance is but one factor of many you’d need to know.
How is that any different than this:
A rock is tested and contains equal parts of Potassium and Argon. How long did it take to get that way?
To get the answer you have to make some things up. They may be “educated guesses” but that is all they are.
One thing we do know about radiometric dating is that rocks of known ages have been dated and been wildly wrong. Mt. St. Helen’s is a primary example of that.
***Comparative morphology will show relationships of fossils over time. You don’t have to be there to watch.***
Comparative morphology proves nothing. In fact it could be used to argue the counterpoint that there was a common designer.
The fossil record is actually not good for the evolutionary side of the argument.
Stephen J. Gould posited Punctuated Equilibrium precisely because the fossil record does not show gradual change.
Stephen Meyer wrote a book called “The Signature in the Cell” in which he discussed in great detail the Cambrian Explosion.... certainly something that evolutionists have to explain away, not use as a basis for argument.
Henry Gee, the senior editor of Nature magazine wrote this back in 1999:
“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story – amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
Needless to say, Henry Gee was no Creationist.
***Scripture is often allegorical. It gives us faith and values that science can never address beyond validating the age and origin of written material but never the religious presentations.***
All of the top Hebrew scholars (and I don’t use the term “all” loosely) are in agreement that the Creation account in the Book of Genesis is a historical narrative and is not allegorical.
You can refer to the works of Dr. Stephen Boyd who did a statistical study of Genesis 1-11 and determined that it was a non-starter to call it allegory.
While scripture uses all of the literary tools that we use today (similes, metaphors, hyperbole and the like), there is no indication that any of it is allegorical.
Archaeologists routinely vouch for the historicity of the Bible.
Blessings to you JimSEA.
In other words, nothing derived by science is true. Only the Bible can inform us?
A creationist does not mean they are also a “young earther”.
***In other words, nothing derived by science is true. Only the Bible can inform us?***
Hi JimSEA.
I don’t know how you could have read my post and come to that conclusion about what I think.
My point is that science hasn’t proven what you think it has proven.
To meet the criteria of the scientific method something has to be observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable.
The theory of evolution can’t meet that requirement.... and neither can creation.
Examination of both propositions is forensic in nature. The question is “what is the most reasonable”?
Natural law demands an outside force to start it all. Consider this:
One of these four things is true, they are the only options:
1. Matter/energy do not exist.
2. Matter/energy are eternal.
3. Matter/energy spontaneously generated from nothing.
4. Matter/energy were created.
Option #1 is falsified by the scientific method, we observe matter and energy every day.
Option #2 is falsified by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Everything in the universe is subject to entropy and we are headed irrevocably toward heat death. If the universe were eternal this would have already happened. It is really a moot point anyway.... science is all-in on the Big Bang, which says that the universe had a beginning and is therefore not eternal.
Option #3 is falsified by the 1st Law of Thermodynamics which says that energy is constant. By natural processes it can neither be created nor destroyed. If natural processes can’t create energy, it had to have been created by something outside of nature… by definition, then, Supernaturally.
It is also falsified by the Law of the Conservation of Matter which says the same thing about matter that the 1st Law of Thermo says about energy.
It is also falsified by the Law of Causality. Every effect must have a pre-existent cause and the effect cannot be greater than the cause. It is not possible to have an infinite regress of causes. The initial cause would have to have come from outside of nature, again, Supernaturally.
Option #4 cannot at this point be falsified….. and it is the only option that is left. I said this to you in an earlier post and I’ll stand on it: The question is not “Is there a Creator”, the questions is “Who is the Creator”.
Those who say that life was planted here by “an alien civilization” (the directed panspermia argument) haven’t solved anything….. they’ve just moved it elsewhere in the universe and they still have the same problems outlined in options 1, 2 & 3 above. The Creator can’t be part of nature, He has to exist outside of nature.
I’ve been interested in this subject for a lot of years now. The more I look at the world around me and the incredible complexity required for life, the more I am in awe of the Creator.
Scripture says in John 1, Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1 that God created everything through his son Jesus Christ.
Jesus then submitted to the will of the Father and was inserted into history to redeem that which He Himself had created in His own image.
When He was here, He validated scripture’s creation account (Mt. 19:4-5), He also validated the global flood (Luke 17:26-27).
Those who profess Christianity and believe that the Creation/Flood accounts are allegorical are essentially disavowing the one they profess to follow.
Blessings to you, JimSEA
Amen, brother!
The theory of evolution was hatched back when mankind knew practically nothing of the complexity of nature and the universe. Nowadays, with scientists continuing to find something new and amazing with each passing day, every desperate attempt to deny the existence of the Creator only makes them look more and more ridiculous.
Imagine if Darwin and his theory never existed. With everything we know now, any scientist who would dare hatch such nonsense today would be laughed out of the profession. And yet, here we are!
The more I think about that, it’s so fascinating, it’s almost like it was meant to happen this way. ;)
No debate.
Within science, scientists do not debate evolution except in strict scientific terms as, for example, when new discoveries lead to new questions about how & when.
Science does not debate Intelligent Design or alien panspermia because there's no obvious evidence for it and no confirmed theory explaining it.
Most important, because by definition of the word "science", it can only consider natural explanations for natural processes.
Anything else (i.e., creationism) is simply non-scientific and that's why there's no debate.
And within our religious teachings there is also no debate on the basics because, again by definition, to be religious you must believe that God created everything we see & perceive even if we have no idea of how He did it.
The only discussion within religion is whether natural-science can contribute anything of value to our understandings of God's creative actions.
Many say, "no" because science by definition can only deal in the natural realm, so science is therefore unalterably opposed to crediting God's supernatural creations.
Others are not so certain that better understanding natural processes necessarily reduces the power & omniscience of nature's Creator.
Of course the "debate" this author fantasizes is between science & religion, or evolution & Creation, but such debates are impossible because science cannot acknowledge the supernatural and much of religion cannot accept natural explanations for Creation.
So they simply talk past each other with one side saying, in effect, "yes it is," and the other side, "no it's not".
That's no debate.
So if a religious person claims, "science can't answer this and science can't answer that and science can't answer the other thing either!" of course that's correct, in part because science by definition was never intended to answer every question, only to find natural explanations for natural processes, where those are even possible.
Yes, it's still true: there's much more science cannot explain than what it can explain, and even where we find natural explanations these should in no way be seen as denying the Hand of God in planning, forming & shaping the natural realm as we perceive it.
So, again, there's no "debate" and the question from a religious perspective is: how can we see the Hand of God in the natural realm?
My answer is: how could we not see His works?
Teach the controversy creationists say. Problem is, there is no controversy.
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.
