[coconutt2000]

How about a non-static creation? Free Will is a matter of perspective anyhow. To say that we can surprise God with our choices is to assume too much, but we can always surprise ourselves...

[Banjoguy]

Duh!

[AmericaUnited]

Blue State = "I evolved from a Slime Puddle or a Monkey"

Red State = "I am fearfully and wonderfully made"

[chronic_loser]

There are creationist alternatives to the ICR crowd. The "framework hypothesis" simply argues that the word "yom" (day) is used in a variety of ways in the OT and that we simply have creation described in the broadest of terms: God created the
REALM Heavens and earth light and darkness on "day" One, and its
RULERS, sun moon and stars "day" four

REALM, separation of "firmaments" into sea and sky on "day" Two, and its RULERS, Fish and fowl, "day" five

REALM, vegetation on the dry land on "day" Three, and its
RULERS, animals and man on "day" six

Plus, the genealogical lines in the Bible cannot be used to "date" the book of Genesis, or the creation, since there are numerous examples of "skipping" generations in the biblical lineage itself. For example, if you find parallel genealogies, one will say A>B>C>D>E>F and the other will simply say A>F. The most radical and absurd example of this is Jesus saying to his detractors "I know that you are sons of Abraham." I am skeptical of both naturalistic gradualism and naturalistic punctuated equibrilium. I am also skeptical of young earth creationism. One of the most interesting things about these positions is the willing self deception often practiced by both groups. They stake out a philosophical position and then bend all intellectual energies (sometimes prodigious) to "proving" it. The naturalistic science camp is especially guilty in that area, in trying to present the religionists as presenting a non-rationally based (and sometimes an irrationally based) construct. They, of course, dismiss all prejudice, all bias, and all selective data interpretation and simply stick to the "facts." Philip Johnson has done a great job of exposing this farcical approach to "science" in his little book Reason in the Balance.

Buncombe is bumcombe, whether it comes from someone who has read a Duane Gish tract and thinks he has all the answers, or some equally obscurantist "scientist" who is so stupid he doesn't see that all he has done is dressed up his philosophical prejudices and bawled out to the world that it is "science."

[Oztrich Boy]

Poll shows Americans divided over question of evolution vs. creation

Who knew?

[Oztrich Boy]

About one-third say it is supported by evidence, one-third see it as bunk and one-third don't know enough to judge.

I suspect there is some overlap there.

[Brilliant]

The two ideas are not inconsistent. I personally don't see any societal interest in the question of whether you believe in creation or evolution. It's a philosophical question, that has no practical application.

[mewzilla]

Why is it an either/or question?

[N. Theknow]

Poll shows Americans divided over question of evolution vs. creation

Also...

boxers vs. briefs
Imports vs. US made automobiles
NFC vs. AFC
DH vs. pitchers hitting
Breasts vs. legs
Coke vs. Pepsi
paper vs. plastic
Air America vs. armpit music
Barbra Streisand vs. home root canal kit
NCIS vs. CSI
Rap music vs. lobotomy
single ply toilet tissue vs. NYT
blondes vs. brunettes and/or redheads

[matchwood]

I believe in directed evolution that provided a path for either greatness or failure depending upon how we exercise our free will.

[rogers21774]

Here's a simple analogy. Put a string and a bunch of beads in a bag. Shake it up and then dump the contents of the bag on the floor. Repeat as many times you want. How long will it take before you get a necklace? Answer. No matter how many times you repeat the process, you'll never get a necklace, You'll only get a string and a bunch of beads.

Think about that and then consider that evolution by definition requires me to believe that life, in all its wonderous forms, the earth, the solar system, the universe, all these things came about by mere chance? That notions seems a whole lot more preposterous than creation by a higher power and intelligence.

[RightWhale]

the Bible is the actual word of God and should be read literally

Which one? Here are Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Latin, Shakespearean English, Chaldee, an assortment of choices. Which is the actual literal Word?

[tortoise]

Oy, we humans are an embarrassment to ourselves (hmm...kind of a circular context reference). Even if evolution is dead wrong and God exists, which could very well be the case, biblical creationism is an assinine belief any way you slice it.

[nmh]

It really boils down to Christians vs the godless.

To have an evolutionist claim to be a "Christian" ALWAYS amuses me. Since we are created in God's image according to evolutionists He is an ape! Evolution is the handy work of Lucifer. It's the same old same old - being "wise using finite knowledge just like Eve. Eve wanted to be "wise" too and see where that got her.

[G Larry]

A Freeper survey of 100,000,000,000,000,000 posts conclude Freepers are deeply divided on the subject.

[bondserv]

^
^
^
^
^
^
^

Is this you?

[Nebullis]

"--one in five Americans--believe man was created in his present form 10,000 years ago, but not because they read the Bible literally. Just 9 percent of the country read the Bible literally but are open to the theory of evolution.

This group must read creationist propaganda literally.