Are creationists dwindling in number?

[lesliedellow]

The thing is though, kids see this kinda stuff, and when adults talk like this, it's no wonder their grades suffer.

If grades suffer in spite of all the dumbing down which has gone on, that says much about the so called "experts" who brought about that dumbing down.

In this country degree courses have gone from three years to four years, because the universities are having to teach what used to be taught in the schools.

 

[AV1611VET]

When you talk about moving the decimal point, my understanding would be that 9 becomes 90 or .9, not going to 10 or 14.

I think I'll make a poll -- this is classic.

 

[pitabread]

Argumentum ad populum.

 

[pitabread]

But a scientific theory does not become fact until it is proven.

...

Theories do not "graduate" and become facts. Theories are to explain facts. And as we learn more, theories get revised to become more in-line with reality.

 

[bhsmte]

All I can tell you is that I stated the same things 35 years ago that you are stating today. But I was enrolled at the University of Texas, not wikipedia, and thought we were at the brink of finally putting to an end the long debate of how the universe was created and when it occurred. I have not found any errors in the Bible, but that is a different subject that perhaps would be better started on a new forum thread. If you do start that thread, I will keep you as person I follow and will look for your post. I didn't mean to upset you. I just do not want another person to make the same mistake I did. You seem to be a person that can understand philosophical logic, and I hope that you do not fall into the trap of believing premises based on circular thinking that many scientific theories, or even polls rely upon to seemingly produce facts. Have faith!

By saying; you have not found any errors in the bible, what do you mean exactly?

 

[pitabread]

Atheistic evolution

Atheistic evolution isn't a scientific concept anymore than atheistic gravity, atheistic germ theory or atheistic plate tectonics. All you are doing is trying to overlay a philosophy regarding the supernatural on top of a scientific theory. But that means nothing to the underlying science because as I already pointed out, science by its nature cannot ultimately make any claims one way or the other about the supernatural.

You appear to be trying to turn this into an atheism versus theism debate. But that's an entirely separate discussion not relevant here.

My whole point was why the theory of evolution is taught in schools. And owing to the fact that evolution has practical application, it's not going away any time soon. The only way you're going to supplant evolution being taught is if you can come up with better science. This is one area, however, where the modern creationist movement has been a complete failure.

 

[bhsmte]

Atheistic evolution isn't a scientific concept anymore than atheistic gravity, atheistic germ theory or atheistic plate tectonics. All you are doing is trying to overly a philosophy regarding the supernatural on top of a scientific theory. But that means nothing to the underlying science because as I already pointed out, science by its nature cannot ultimately make any claims one way or the other about the supernatural.

You appear to be trying to turn this into an atheism versus theism debate. But that's an entirely separate discussion not relevant here.

My whole point was why the theory of evolution is taught in schools. And owing to the fact that evolution has practical application, it's not going away any time soon. The only way you're going to supplant evolution being taught is if you can come up with better science. This is one area, however, where the modern creationist movement has been a complete failure.

Just your standard run of the mill strawman argument, whenever you see the term; atheistic evolution.

More than anything, it is a sign of desperation.

 

[hedrick]

The term "theistic evolution" has always seemed weird to me. I accept evolution, like I accept all the other well-established scientific models. I don't think that rules out God's providence, so I normally choose "theistic evolution" as my alternative. But that doesn't mean I think it requires God's continuing intervention, in any way other than the normal operations of God's providence.

 

[bhsmte]

The term "theistic evolution" has always seemed weird to me. I accept evolution, like I accept all the other well-established scientific models. I don't think that rules out God's providence, so I normally choose "theistic evolution" as my alternative. But that doesn't mean I think it requires God's continuing intervention, in any way other than the normal operations of God's providence.

Agree. The theory of evolution explains the available evidence, to support the theory and only the known evidence. If folks want to personally interject a God into the theory, that is something they are free to do.

 

[Aman777]

We know that the Biblical narrative is ridiculously wrong.

Translation: We know, according to Evolism, that we know more than God. Ignore God's Truth in favor Satan's Lies, we preach. God says that unbelievers cannot understand His Holy Word but the Religious devotees of Evolism know better because we have tested the ancient religious interpretation of the Creation and found it to be false Scientifically and Historically and we REJECT what is actually written in Scripture because only members of our Evo religion can possibly know the Truth. So, sit down bumpkins and listen only to us, and not God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Argumentum ad populum.

No. We already know that the theory of evolution is essentially correct. What the OP is wondering about it when the U.S. population will catch up.

 

[Speedwell]

Translation: We know, according to Evolism, that we know more than God. Ignore God's Truth in favor Satan's Lies, we preach. God says that unbelievers cannot understand His Holy Word but the Religious devotees of Evolism know better because we have tested the ancient religious interpretation of the Creation and found it to be false Scientifically and Historically and we REJECT what is actually written in Scripture because only members of our Evo religion can possibly know the Truth. So, sit down bumpkins and listen only to us, and not God.

So by your own admission, it's not a conflict between evolution and God, it's a conflict between evolution and your particular interpretation of scripture.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Translation: We know, according to Evolism, that we know more than God. Ignore God's Truth in favor Satan's Lies, we preach. God says that unbelievers cannot understand His Holy Word but the Religious devotees of Evolism know better because we have tested the ancient religious interpretation of the Creation and found it to be false Scientifically and Historically and we REJECT what is actually written in Scripture because only members of our Evo religion can possibly know the Truth. So, sit down bumpkins and listen only to us, and not God.

Aman, you know better than this.

Why do you post such nonsense and personal attacks?

 

[Aman777]

The problem is in finding a truly honest creationist.

That's because some reject God's Truth in favor of their own twisted, non-evidenced Bluster. In the end, we ALL will see the ridiculous and arrogant nature of the above statement. Unbelievers should limit their weeping and gnashing of teeth, which is quiet annoying, since it will not stop their righteous judgment. God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

So by your own admission, it's not a conflict between evolution and God, it's a conflict between evolution and your particular interpretation of scripture.

No, the sin is in thinking that one knows better than their Creator. Ask Lucifer since he thinks just like those who reject God's Truth. God Bless you

 

[Speedwell]

No, the sin is in thinking that one knows better than their Creator. Ask Lucifer since he thinks just like those who reject God's Truth. God Bless you

"God's Truth" as defined by you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's because some reject God's Truth in favor of their own twisted, non-evidenced Bluster. In the end, we ALL will see the ridiculous and arrogant nature of the above statement. Unbelievers should limit their weeping and gnashing of teeth, which is quiet annoying, since it will not stop their righteous judgment. God Bless you

No one has "rejected Gods' truth". And you do not even know what is and what is not evidence.

I will gladly help you with the concept of evidence. Only those that are totally ignorant of the concept make the error that you just did.

And if you want to claim that the Bible is "God's truth" the burden of proof is upon you.

Why do you and all other creationists run away from that duty of theirs?

 

[Aman777]

Aman, you know better than this.

Why do you post such nonsense and personal attacks?

Perhaps it's because I see some others attacking God's Truth daily and sometimes I just have to remind them what they are preaching. Here's an example:

>>>>>>We know that the Biblical narrative is ridiculously wrong.<<<<<<

History is littered with such foolishness from unbelievers of every "kind". God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

"God's Truth" as defined by you.

No, but instead, it is what is actually written in Scripture which agrees with facts of Science and History. That's God's Truth which will stand when the world is on fire. The False ToE will burn along with those who reject God's Truth. God Bless you

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps it's because I see some others attacking God's Truth daily and sometimes I just have to remind them what they are preaching. Here's an example:

>>>>>>We know that the Biblical narrative is ridiculously wrong.<<<<<<

History is littered with such foolishness from unbelievers of every "kind". God Bless you

Once again, if you want to claim that the Bible is "God's truth" the burden of proof is upon you. Not even most Christians share your extremist views.

And no, they are not preaching. They can support their claims with evidence, something that you cannot do.