• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

USA: 60% think that "god created earth" is science

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


<< I still don't see why the theory of Creation can't be touched on as well as the theory of Evolution in schools. >>

Because there is no evidence supporting it. Also, creation is religious belief. We don't teach religious beliefs in public schools in the United States, thank goodness.
 
<<Whitedog, we are talking about creative days, not literal 24-hour periods. According to the Bible, we are still in God's Rest Day (day 7) even after thousands of years.>>

apoppin, what the hell are you talking about? Any scriptural referrance to this?

Adam was created on the 6th day. God rested on the 7th. Then the weeks starts over. 7 days in a week. you know? It's still like that? Where do you got &quot;thousands of years from&quot; I'd sure be interested in knowing.
 
Ah, well, where did life come from then? Do we just skip over this in school? What is the secular answer to that? Couldn't we throw a few &quot;theories&quot; at em and see what sticks? Still don't see why not. Just don't mention the word religion! Does this mean we could discuss Isla's theory of alien seeds, but not creation? :Q
 
&quot;Because there is no evidence supporting it.&quot;

Please, demonstrate one shred of evidence for an Abiogenetic origin of life. We'll wait. Until then, kindly stop saying that Creationist teachings have any less value (due to lack of &quot;provability&quot😉 than do theories postulating abiogenesis. The truth is, we have absolutely no idea of how life arose, nor any way of being able to prove any of our theses on the matter.
 
My opinion? Educate the students about the best theories that we currently have right now about potential scientific origins of life. Are these theories necessarily perfect? No, of course not. But they are the best ideas we currently have, based on the knowledge we have about the early origins of the earth.
 
There is only one creation viewpoint expressed in the Bible. It is pretty clear. However, many creationists will twist it to fit their religious viewpoint.

BTW, as you so well pointed out, Napalm381, there are myriads of often conflicting evolutionary theories.

LEAPS The evolutionary theory predicted that living organisms climbed the ladder from simple to more advanced forms.

In fact, as the book Evolution from Space states, &quot;Most of the biochemical complexity of life was present already at the time the oldest surface rocks of the Earth were formed.&quot; (by Fred Hoyle, p.8).


<<the fact that we do not currently have a fossil does not mean that one will not appear in the future.>>

That is about as reasonable as me telling you just because God has not appeared to you in the past does not mean he will not appear to you in the future.



MUTATIONS From your own link.


<<While it is true that most mutations are either harmful, as suggested by the creationists, or neutral, the creationists gloss over a crucial fact: beneficial mutations do occur, though they are very rare.>>

Evolutionists awknowledge for every useful mutation there are many thousands which are harmful.

Is it really resonable that a process that results in harm 999 times out of a thousand be considered beneficial.

What I'd really like you to explain to me is how life originated from non-living matter.

EDIT: If religion has no place in public schools, neither does evolution (which takes great faith to believe).
 


<< That is about as reasonable as me telling you just because God has not appeared to you in the past does not mean he will not appear to you in the future. >>

Fossils have been found in the past, and will be found in the future. A crucial distinction.


<< Evolutionists awknowledge for every useful mutation there are many thousands which are harmful. >>

Precisely. But given the number of cells in a organism and the rate at which these cells divide, the number of individuals in a population, and the rate at which these individuals reproduce, one out of every thousand will end up being thousands and thousands of gradual beneficial mutations.
 
Sorry, Whitedog. Not on purpose. It's pretty hard to answer many people at once.

First of all, God's days are not 24 hours. 2 Peter 3:8 Says &quot;one day with god is as a thousand years.&quot; He is not limited by how humans measure time.

Secondly, read Hebrews 4:1-5 which discusses God's rest from creative works and his worshipers still entering into that rest.
 
You forget Napalm 318, that the fossils that have been discovered do not support your claims.

The mutation process is fundamentally flawed as a vehicle for improvement. The harmful mutations are tearing down at 1000-to-1.
 


<< there are myriads of often conflicting evolutionary theories. >>

Which ones? People may disagree on a few minor details of evolutionary theory, but the &quot;big picture&quot; is virtually universally accepted among biologists. On the contrary, there are many differing theories regarding creation. Which is correct?

Whose interpretation of the bible is correct, yours or Whitedogs? On what basis do you stake your claim of accurate interpretation? Something I have always wondered regarding Christianity in general.
 


<< The mutation process is fundamentally flawed as a vehicle for improvement. The harmful mutations are tearing down at 1000-to-1. >>

You appear to be neglecting natural selection.
 
So which evolutionary theory should I subscribe to?

Read the Bible for yourself. It's just one book.

As to natural selection as explained by Darwin, nature &quot;selected&quot; the fittest living things to survive. As these fit ones supposedly acquired new features that worked to their advantage and they supposedly evolved. Truely the fittest do survive but evolution does not explain how they arrived.

Again, I ask you about the ORIGIN of life from non-living matter.
 



*yawn*


Me thinks watching the Lawrence Welk show would be more entertaining than continuing with this debate.



Well, for those of you who seem to despise Czar (I don't, I think a multitude of opinions is necessary), he sure got a rise out of you all.

Let's face it. We all have our beliefs. If we are comfortable with them, then who the hell cares?

However, I will say this... No, I think Mark Twain said this, &quot;I never learned anything of use from a man who agreed with me&quot;.

Thank you all for your input. I soapdish now declare the topic of Creationism vs. Evolution a Dead Horse, and will you all stop beating it already!


🙂 🙂 🙂
 
Sorry apoppin, but We've had this discussion in bible study several times... You have to read the whole text...

2 Peter reads &quot;With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.&quot;

What Peter was trying to get across to his subjects is Time is not a factor with God. You see, his subjects were questioning &quot;when was the Lord returning&quot;. They were saying that time has been going on and on like from the beginning of creation and he still hasn't came? Christ told us He would return &quot;one day&quot;, but we can't put a date on it. So therefore, a day could be &quot;like&quot; a thousand years.

In Hebrews 4, The writter is quoting God about &quot;entering His rest&quot;. This is not the 7th day of Creation, this is &quot;his rest&quot;, or his eternal rest, or &quot;his salvation&quot;.

The creation took 7 days... sunrise to sunset. 1 day at a time... just as we know a day. Nothing in the bible indicates otherwise.
 


<< So which evolutionary theory should I subscribe to? >>

There aren't a multitude of evolutionary theories as there are creation theories.



<< Read the Bible for yourself. It's just one book. >>

With seemingless infinite interpretation. Who's is correct, and why?



<< As to natural selection as explained by Darwin, nature &quot;selected&quot; the fittest living things to survive. As these fit ones supposedly acquired new features that worked to their advantage and they supposedly evolved. Truely the fittest do survive but evolution does not explain how they arrived. >>

It doesn't? Evolution and natural selection work hand in hand.



<< Again, I ask you about the ORIGIN of life from non-living matter. >>

I posted a link above. I presumed that you would have looked at it by now, I see you haven't. Please reference it.

 
Why can't the creationists just accept that its their faith that makes them believe in creation, nothing more.

Afterall, how many athiestic or agnostic creationists are there out there?

Consequently they should be happy just to keep it to themselves &amp; not force it on to schools, etc.

Otherwise if those schools were forced to teach Judaic-christian creationism, they'd also have to teach the Hindu, Bhuddist, Jainist, Confusian, animalist, native American &amp; pagen myths etc, too.

Afterall we can't discriminate in favour of one religion over another, can we.
 
Exactly, Whitedog, God is not bound by man's 24-hour days.

In the Genesis account, we read of each of the 6 days having a conclusion - an evening and a morning. Yet of the 7th day we do not read of a conclusion to that day. Read Genesis 2:2,3. God was still resting from his creative work at the time of Moses writing that Genesis account. Also Exodus 20:11, speaks of why God &quot;blessed the sabbath day and proceeded to make it sacred.&quot; Matthew 12:8 speaks of Jesus as Lord of the Sabbath and the prophecy of Revelation 20:4-6 has not been fulfilled yet (which finishes up God's rest).

Cross-reference this with Hebrews 3:17, 18 &amp; 4:1 which speaks of his &quot;rest&quot; (from creative works) as ongoing. Hebrews 4:3-11 explains that those who &quot;exercise faith do enter into his rest.&quot; It is clearly talking about &quot;the seventh day&quot; following the 6 periods of creation (&quot;days&quot😉.

Clearly, each of the 6 creative days are thousands of years each.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top