Creation or Evolution

[mark kennedy]

I will say I am a young earth creationist, however the bible does not give us exact dates on when the world was created (Ussher's date and others are estimates). On this issue I thinking more along the theology than the science, since the bible is not a science textbook as such).

I would agree broadly with what Southern Baptist Seminary Albert Mohler has to say on this subject. When he gave a speech to the Ligonier Ministries 2010 National Conference. There is a transcript of the talk on his website.

If you mean this quote:

“The theory of evolution is incompatible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ even as it is in direct conflict with any faithful reading of the Scriptures.” (2010 Ligonier Ministries National Conference)​

Then I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I am also a creationist because I am a scientist.

There's an oxymoron.

Develop an experiment to test whether or not the theory is correct. Evolution is untested and untestable.

The development of a new species simply takes too long - such an experiment would require millions of years.

Why do I call it a religious belief? Because it is a belief about God. The belief that He does not exist.
...
The only way to "prove" evolution is to start with the assumption that there was not an intelligent designer who created all this.

Rubbish. The majority of evolutionists are theists.

Next, If evolution (Darwinism) is true then you would agree that lizards evolved into birds. #1. feel free to show me a skeleton of a lizard with wings. Oh yeah....there should be millions of these remains laying around, yet not one has ever been produced. #2. If natural selection controlled evolution, tell me what was the tactical benefit of a lizard running around dragging half grown wings? Would that not make it more vulnerable? Theory disproved.

This is what believers in Intelligent Design call 'irreducible complexity'. What use is half an eye, only two inner earbones, or in your case half a wing? Half a wing may not be as efficient as a full-developed wing but it's much better than no wings at all - if, for example, it helps them leap out of a predators way quicker. Flying squirrels for example cannot actually fly but they can leap from tree to tree.
As they say "In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king."

 

[Faith.Man]

Just a few points. First, to believe in evolution without all of the smoke and mirrors and oh yeah the BIG BANG....you must first believe that an inanimate object can produce an aniamte object....hmmmmm...don't think so pal.

Next, If evolution (Darwinism) is true then you would agree that lizards evolved into birds. #1. feel free to show me a skeleton of a lizard with wings. Oh yeah....there should be millions of these remains laying around, yet not one has ever been produced. #2. If natural selection controlled evolution, tell me what was the tactical benefit of a lizard running around dragging half grown wings? Would that not make it more vulnerable? Theory disproved.

Every one of Darwins evolutionary men have been debunked. Ex. Java man was later discovered to have been theorized from a single toothe. The toothe was later discovered to have been that of an extinct pig. Go figure.

To the Young Earthers: Sorry. Adam and Eve were asked to replenish (refill) the Earth. If you study the descriptions of the flood in the bible you will find that there were two floods not one. Look in Jeremiah. One flood killed everything including animals and plant life (Satan's flood) and one did not (Noah's flood). One was obviously before Adam and Eve and one after.
There was a PreAdam world. Science and Theology have more to agree upon than they think.

As an old earth creationist, Gap Theory advocate, I both believe in the Big Bang and in creation as described in Genesis. God created the universe from nothing, with a word, by the Word, as the Big Bang theory suggests. There was no time before the Big Bang, time is a dimension created during the Big Bang. Genesis 1:1 and Isaiah 45:18 describes the original creation. I also believe the world described in Genesis 1:2 was the result of some prior judgment (Satan's flood? Ezekiel 28:11-19). Noah's flood was a local flood, not a global flood as so many Christians believe. There is no geological data to support a global flood (where did the water go?), but there is support for a large local flood. The Nephilim existed before the flood, and also after (Genesis 6:4, Numbers 13:33). Those are my thoughts on the subject. I suspect from reading your post, we would find several areas of agreement.

God bless

 

[mark kennedy]

There's an oxymoron.

Yea like theistic evolutionist

The development of a new species simply takes too long - such an experiment would require millions of years.

Nonsense, speciation is neither rare nor a multimillion year process.

Rubbish. The majority of evolutionists are theists.

Rubbish, scientists are evenly split over a belief in God

The recent survey of scientists tracks fairly closely with earlier polls that gauged scientists' views on religion. The first of these was conducted in 1914 by Swiss-American psychologist James Leuba, who surveyed about 1,000 scientists in the United States to ask them about their views on God. Leuba found the scientific community equally divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not.

More than 80 years later, Edward Larson, a historian of science then teaching at the University of Georgia, recreated Leuba's survey, asking the same number of scientists the exact same questions. To the surprise of many, Larson's 1996 poll came up with similar results, finding that 40% of scientists believed in a personal God, while 45% said they did not. Other surveys of scientists have yielded roughly similar results.​

For Biology and Medical field professionals its 32% believe in God, 19% believe in a Higher Power, 41% who don't believe in either.

Scientists and Belief

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

There's an oxymoron

Yea like theistic evolutionist

So your statistics say the majority of evolutionists are atheists?

The recent survey of scientists tracks fairly closely with earlier polls that gauged scientists' views on religion. The first of these was conducted in 1914 by Swiss-American psychologist James Leuba, who surveyed about 1,000 scientists in the United States to ask them about their views on God. Leuba found the scientific community equally divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not.​

More than 80 years later, Edward Larson, a historian of science then teaching at the University of Georgia, recreated Leuba's survey, asking the same number of scientists the exact same questions. To the surprise of many, Larson's 1996 poll came up with similar results, finding that 40% of scientists believed in a personal God, while 45% said they did not. Other surveys of scientists have yielded roughly similar results.​

(My emphasis) The prediction was that as time went on, scientists who believed in God would gradually vanish and atheist scientists would become the majority. Evidently this was not the case.​

 

[iambeeman]

I am also a creationist because I am a scientist.

There's an oxymoron.

So much for fair open mindedness. Your ears are closed before anything is said all based on a presupposition.

 

[mark kennedy]

So your statistics say the majority of evolutionists are atheists?

Why do you guys never feel the need to define your terms. Evolutionists are what exactly? If by evolution you mean 'the change of alleles in populations over time' I'm an evolutionist. If you mean the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means then evolutionist by definition 'atheistic'. Define evolutionist or you will get dizzy talking in circles around your pivotal term.

The prediction was that as time went on, scientists who believed in God would gradually vanish and atheist scientists would become the majority. Evidently this was not the case.

What prediction are you talking about?

 

[mark kennedy]

So much for fair open mindedness. Your ears are closed before anything is said all based on a presupposition.

'
That's right and here it is:

He (Lamarck) first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species. Emphasis added)​

Darwinism is one long argument against special creation, all evolutionists who are honest emphasis this point. It's based on naturalistic assumptions as opposed to what Darwin called 'miraculous interposition'. The creation of Adam would have been a 'miraculous interposition' but Paul doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

According to Paul:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).​

Paul says repeatedly that sin was the result of one sin/trespass and Paul identifies that man as Adam.

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (II Peter 3:15.16)​

Genesis

Antediluvian Period:

1) Historic 6 Days of Creation (Romans 1:18-22; Heb. 11:3)
2) Adam and Eve Created (Luke 3:38; Rev. 22:3)
3) Sin and Death Through Adam (Rom 5:12-21)
4) Wicked Cain Slew Righteous Abel (I John 3:12; Matt. 23:35)
5) Generations: Adam to Noah (Luke 3:23-38)
6) Antediluvian Period (Heb. 11:7; I Peter 3:19-20)
7) Flood Prevails for 150 Days (II Peter 2:5; Luke 12:27)

From Noah to Abram:

8) Waters Recede and Noahic Covenant (II Peter 3:3-10)
9) Repopulation: Shem, Ham and Japeth (Acts 17:26)
10) Generations: From Noah to Terah (Micah 5:6)
11) Tower of Babel and Shem to Terah (Heb 11:8-10)
12) Abram Called: from Ur to Egypt (Heb 11:15)
13) Abram and Lot Separate (Jude 18,19)
14) Abram and Melchizedek (Heb 7:1-22)

These chapters are foundational to all of Christian theism and to discard them as anything other then historical is to abandon the original intent of the author. Given the fact that the New Testament confirms in no uncertain terms the historical nature of these passages skepticism of them is suspect. The profound theological principles inextricably linked to the sin of Adam and the judgment of the Flood makes historicity of Genesis essential to Christian theism. If arguments to the contrary exist then I have yet to see them except in the most superficial of rationalizations. Dismissing them as figurative does a grave injustice to the authority of Scripture and the Christian scholarship surrounding them for almost 2,000 years before the advent of Darwinism.

 

[Papias]

NSP wrote:

Originally Posted by Biblewriter

Develop an experiment to test whether or not the theory is correct. Evolution is untested and untestable.

The development of a new species simply takes too long - such an experiment would require millions of years.


​

NSP is correct that BW's statement is false, but not because the experiment is hard. It's false because the scientific method requires that one makes a testable prediction, and then to test that prediction by experiment (repeating the past event is not required). For instance, a testable prediction would be "a fossil of a creature transitional between a fish and a tetrapod will be found", the experiment being looking for that creature. Thus, things in the past are in the realm of science.

Another example is "if OJ committed the murder, then his DNA will match that found at the crime scene.", which is testable by an experimentally determining the DNA. Creationists who use the distortion that BW used (which is the wrong idea that things in the past cannot be scientifically tested) are misleading people. It's sad that in case after case (including BW's), they continue to mislead even after being shown that science does indeed test past events. That says something about their integrity.




NSP wrote:

Rubbish. The majority of evolutionists are theists.

Right. Statistics have shown this again and again. In fact, the majority of evolution supporters are not just theists, but Christians. Interestingly, Mark himself gave the statistics showing that in his post #7, here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7521063/


Now, notice how Mark moved the goalposts in your discussion:

NSP wrote:

Rubbish. The majority of evolutionists are theists.

To which Mark replied:
​

Rubbish, scientists are evenly split over a belief in God

Whoa, Mark! Mark changed the "evolutionists" to "scientists". That's a clear distortion, because nearly all of those who support evolution are not scientists. You can see this from Mark's own statistics in his post #7 I linked to above. From his data, dozens of millions of those in the US support evolution (in the range of 30 to 45%), while less than 1% of those in the US are scientists.

Wow Mark, good way to show your integrity. I'm sure that'll help people seeing these discussions become convinced the Christians are honest and morally upright. Maybe next time honestly discuss the person's argument, instead of changing it into a strawman?

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

Right. Statistics have shown this again and again. In fact, the majority of evolution supporters are not just theists, but Christians. Interestingly, Mark himself gave the statistics showing that in his post #7, here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7521063/

Sure did, since I was the one to actually introduce statistics that you ignored, I'll offer more then a pusillanimous link?

Someone doesn't understand basic math. There are around 100 million Christians who support theistic evolution in the United States. There are only a few thousand academic positions where anyone would care what one's evolutionary understanding was. I, for instance, could be a raving creationist and my career would not be hurt at all (perhaps helped, in fact). For nearly everyone, saying that they as TE because they want to help their "academic reputation" - as if they had one, is demonstrably wrong.

Here are the numbers.

"By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." (Newsweek magazine, 1987-JUN-2)​

That's a minority of 0.14% of the 'respectable' academic world. The demographics speak very differently:

Beliefs on evolution and creation, conducted at least six occasions between 1982 and 2004.

Creationist view: God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.

• 1982- 44%
• 1993- 47%
• 1997- 44%
• 1999- 47%
• 2001- 45%
• 2004- 45%

Theistic Evolution: Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.

• 1982- 38%
• 1993- 35%
• 1997- 39%
• 1999- 40%
• 2001- 37%
• 2004- 38%

Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.

• 1982- 9%
• 1993- 11%
• 1997- 10%
• 1999- 9%
• 2001- 12%
• 2004- 13%

Now you do the math.

Results of public opinion polls on evolution and creation science

It gets even worse when you ask people about Darwinism:

During 1999-AUG-25 & 26, Fox News asked what is the more likely explanation for the origin of human life: the theory of evolution as outlined by Darwin and other scientists, or the biblical account of creation. Results were:​

• Evolution: 15%
• Biblical creation: 50%
• Both: 26%

Whether it happened by evolution or "the biblical account of creation.:

• Humans came to be via evolution: 33%
• God created the world in 6 days: 44%
• God was a divine presence: 13%
• Don't know: 10%

(NBC News, 2005-MAR-8 and 10)

Notice how the statistics change when you include naturalistic assumptions:

History of humans and other species: whether they "...have existed in their present form since the beginning of time," or have evolved over time."​

• Existed in present form only: 42% (Creationist); cf. 45% for Gallup.
• Evolved via natural processes: 26% (Naturalistic evolution); cf. Gallup's 13%
• Evolved via God's guidance:: 18% (Theistic evolution); cf. Gallup's 38% for
• Don't know: 14%

(2005-JUL-7 and 17, Pew Research)

People may not believe the Bible as a vast majority but there is a much smaller minority that rejects God as the primary first cause of life in general and man in particular.

By undermining the historicity of Genesis they are undermining faith itself. Give heliocentric doctrine the throne and make the Bible its servant, and you have laid the foundation for spiritual disaster.

Papias

You are undermining the historicity of Genesis and 'faith' itself while affirming neither:

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. (Hebrews 1:1-3)​

As far as the heliocentric doctrine, none exists. Adam being specially created is a matter of doctrine so don't get it twisted, this is about the historicity of the Bible with regards to human lineage.

...but you knew that...didn't you Papias?

Now, notice how Mark moved the goalposts in your discussion:

Notice how Papias is fabricating a fallacy.

NSP wrote: Rubbish. The majority of evolutionists are theists.

To which Mark replied: Rubbish, scientists are evenly split over a belief in God​

I also called for a definition of 'evolutionist' and 'christian'. You simply ignore the Scriptures and whatever doesn't fit into you rhetorical rants. There is no moving of goal posts, there are no goal posts. When evolutionists invade this forum with their fallacious arguments they argue in circles around false assumptions.

Whoa, Mark! Mark changed the "evolutionists" to "scientists". That's a clear distortion, because nearly all of those who support evolution are not scientists. You can see this from Mark's own statistics in his post #7 I linked to above. From his data, dozens of millions of those in the US support evolution (in the range of 30 to 45%), while less than 1% of those in the US are scientists.

That distinction has to be made, there is a difference between the academic clerics who worship at the alter of naturalistic assumptions and people was simply accept evolution as natural history. The term 'evolutionist' is ambiguous in that context and so if you can't define pivotal terms the conversation will go in circles.

Wow Mark, good way to show your integrity. I'm sure that'll help people seeing these discussions become convinced the Christians are honest and morally upright. Maybe next time honestly discuss the person's argument, instead of changing it into a strawman?

Papias

I noticed the Scriptural authority for the creation of Adam and the explicit link of Adam's sin to the sin of mankind were not worth even a passing comment. Typical TE rhetoric, devoid of canonical authority but zealously ranting about what it means to be a Christian.

Define your terms Papias because these fallacious attacks are not only rude they are shallow circular arguments.

Papias definitions:

1. Christian-
2. Evolution-
3. Scientist-
4. Evolutionist-

That will do for starters. Rest assured if you continue to ignore the Scriptures and fail to define your terms you will be seeing this challenge again.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

So much for fair open mindedness. Your ears are closed before anything is said all based on a presupposition.

To be blunt, yes I am close-minded in this case. This is because there is no credible evidence than all living beings were created in their present form and because belief in evolution does not require a lack of believe in God.

Evolutionists are what exactly? If by evolution you mean 'the change of alleles in populations over time' I'm an evolutionist. If you mean the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means then evolutionist by definition 'atheistic'. Define evolutionist or you will get dizzy talking in circles around your pivotal term.

An evolutionist is someone who believes in Darwinist evolution - living beings adapt to their environments via genetic mutations which can be passed on to their offspring. Essentially evolution is genetics but on a very large scale.

Regarding your link to religioustolerance.org, I noticed your statistics had a few flaws. The first is that some of the sources are notoriously unreliable - Fox News and internet polls for example. The second is that the results are primarily from Americans. I suspect there is a strong political connection here, not a religious one. Under 'Beliefs elsewhere in the world' a poll of 103 British Christians revealed that 97% did NOT believe the world was created in 6 days.

Admittedly however this poll was very small, and those who believe the world wasn't created in 6 days could include old earth creationists and supporters of intelligent design.

 

[mark kennedy]

An evolutionist is someone who believes in Darwinist evolution - living beings adapt to their environments via genetic mutations which can be passed on to their offspring. Essentially evolution is genetics but on a very large scale.

Evolution is defined in genetics as the change of alleles in populations over time. An evolutionist, by your definition, is another word for Darwinian. I don't know what you consider 'genetics on a very large scale' but if you mean mutations it's one of the worst mechanisms for an adaptation imaginable.

Pick a chromosome, any chromosome and you will see the sever deleterious effects of mutations on genetic mechanisms.

Human Genome Landmarks Poster: Chromosome Viewer

Regarding your link to religioustolerance.org, I noticed your statistics had a few flaws. The first is that some of the sources are notoriously unreliable - Fox News and internet polls for example. The second is that the results are primarily from Americans. I suspect there is a strong political connection here, not a religious one. Under 'Beliefs elsewhere in the world' a poll of 103 British Christians revealed that 97% did NOT believe the world was created in 6 days.

How about this one:

Over 2,000 participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life:

• 22% chose creationism
• 17% opted for intelligent design
• 48% selected evolution theory
• and the rest did not know.

When given a choice of three descriptions for the development of life on Earth, people were asked which one or ones they would like to see taught in science lessons in British schools:

• 44% said creationism should be included
• 41% intelligent design
• 69% wanted evolution as part of the science curriculum.

Britons unconvinced on evolution BBC

Admittedly however this poll was very small, and those who believe the world wasn't created in 6 days could include old earth creationists and supporters of intelligent design.

Yep

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I don't know what you consider 'genetics on a very large scale' but if you mean mutations it's one of the worst mechanisms for an adaptation imaginable.

Pick a chromosome, any chromosome and you will see the sever deleterious effects of mutations on genetic mechanisms.

Sigh.
We had this very argument on a different thread, over and over and over again. Your idea that 'mutations are the worst adaptation mechanisms possible' is completely wrong. Please don't drag it up again.

As for your link to the BBC news website, notice how supporters of teaching evolution (who were the majority at 69%) did not mention their religion, so in this case the data does not reflect that evolutionists have some secret atheist agenda.

 

[mark kennedy]

Sigh.
We had this very argument on a different thread, over and over and over again. Your idea that 'mutations are the worst adaptation mechanisms possible' is completely wrong. Please don't drag it up again.

Pick a chromosome, any chromosome and you will see the sever deleterious effects of mutations on genetic mechanisms.

Human Genome Landmarks Poster: Chromosome Viewer

As for your link to the BBC news website, notice how supporters of teaching evolution (who were the majority at 69%) did not mention their religion, so in this case the data does not reflect that evolutionists have some secret atheist agenda.

They have an agenda but it's not a big secret, they have rejected any hint of the supernatural and God as the primary first cause. They are explicit in their treatment of God and the Bible and uniformly consistent in their categorical rejection of God's interaction in human affairs.

The demographics are far different for common folks then they are for those who live in academic ivory towers. The statistics have not changed much over the last hundred years, this should be telling us something.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Pick a chromosome, any chromosome and you will see the sever deleterious effects of mutations on genetic mechanisms.

I heard you the first time, and the many times after that. Your idea is wrong.

They have an agenda but it's not a big secret, they have rejected any hint of the supernatural and God as the primary first cause. They are explicit in their treatment of God and the Bible and uniformly consistent in their categorical rejection of God's interaction in human affairs.

You've repeatedly said that as well, despite the numerous times we have pointed out belief in evolution does not lead to atheism. The majority of evolutionists are also theists.

The statistics have not changed much over the last hundred years, this should be telling us something.

Yes it does, it shows that despite the increasing evidence that evolution is correct, personal faith was not affected as greatly as we thought ti would be.

 

[gluadys]

Evolution is defined in genetics as the change of alleles in populations over time. An evolutionist, by your definition, is another word for Darwinian. I don't know what you consider 'genetics on a very large scale' but if you mean mutations it's one of the worst mechanisms for an adaptation imaginable.

Pick a chromosome, any chromosome and you will see the sever deleterious effects of mutations on genetic mechanisms.

We have been over this many times. Not once have you shown that the effects of mutations on their host individuals is relevant to the change of alleles in populations over time.

What sort of change in alleles in a population do you expect when a deleterious mutation has entered the population via a dominant or co-dominant allele? via a recessive allele?

How be you show us the likely trend in the distribution of alleles over several generations and explain the reason for this trend.

 

[Papias]

Mark wrote:

Papias definitions:

I agree that clear definitions are essential to a good discussion, so I've moved this to the front to clarify first. So, for the purposes of this discussion, I'll try these definitions in reference to members of the United States.

Christian-

A person for whom Jesus is centrally important to their religion. I generally avoid the "I'm Christianer than thou" approach, because that judgement is up to God, not me.

Evolution-

A change in allele frequency in a population over time. Note that this includes a change from an initial frequency of 0.

Scientist-

In modern times, person with all of the following:

1. A Ph.D or equivalent degree from an accredited University
2. years of research in either industry or academia
3. publications of said original research in peer-reviewed scientific journals

Evolutionist-

In common usage, one who accepts the evolution of humans from earlier, chimp-like primates. I think this definition is more useful than just whether or not they deny evolution (see above), because a minority of YEC creationists also accept speciation, mistakenly calling it microevolution.

Mark wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

Right. Statistics have shown this again and again. In fact, the majority of evolution supporters are not just theists, but Christians. Interestingly, Mark himself gave the statistics showing that in his post #7, here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7521063/

Sure did, since I was the one to actually introduce statistics that you ignored, I'll offer more then a pusillanimous link?

​

Mark, I didn't ignore them. I showed that they supported my statement that the majority of evolution supporters in the US are Christian. In fact because not only most of the founders of the field were Christian, and because most of the evolution supporters in the US are Christian today, it seems that Evolution is mainly a Christian idea.

Mark

Originally Posted by Papias

Someone doesn't understand basic math. There are around 100 million Christians who support theistic evolution in the United States. There are only a few thousand academic positions where anyone would care what one's evolutionary understanding was. I, for instance, could be a raving creationist and my career would not be hurt at all (perhaps helped, in fact). For nearly everyone, saying that they as TE because they want to help their "academic reputation" - as if they had one, is demonstrably wrong.
​

Here are the numbers.

Mark, again, as I've shown, using your numbers over and over, the majority of those who support evolution are Christian. Do you still disagree that the majority of those who support evolution are Chrisitan? If so, on what basis, since your own statistics show it?

"By one count there are some 700 scientists with ....

So who cares? Academics are a tiny minority of the population, no matter what they believe.

Creationist view: God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.

• 1982- 44%
• 1993- 47%
• 1997- 44%
• 1999- 47%
• 2001- 45%
• 2004- 45%

OK, since there are around 300 million Americans, that comes to around 300 * 0.45 ~ roughly 140 million. Why is that relevant to the statement that the majority of those who support evolution are Christian?

Theistic Evolution: Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.

• 1982- 38%
• 1993- 35%
• 1997- 39%
• 1999- 40%
• 2001- 37%
• 2004- 38%

OK, that comes to around 115 million.

Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.

• 1982- 9%
• 1993- 11%
• 1997- 10%
• 1999- 9%
• 2001- 12%
• 2004- 13%

OK, so that comes to around 39 million (300*.13).

Now you do the math.

OK, I will again for people like Mark who need the details spelled out for them. Of those who support evolution, we have 39+115=155 million.

Of those, 115 million are theistic evolutionists, Christians.

So of those who support evolution, 115/155 = over 70% are Christians. See how clear it is that the majority of those who support evolution are Christian? It's not even close, 70 is much more than 50%. If that were an election, we'd call it a landslide.

It gets even worse when you ask people about Darwinism:

What get's even worse? I don't see any way those statistics help you, Mark. Maybe be more clear about how you think they help you?

History of humans and other species: whether they "...have existed in their present form since the beginning of time," or have evolved over time."
​

• Existed in present form only: 42% (Creationist); cf. 45% for Gallup.
• Evolved via natural processes: 26% (Naturalistic evolution); cf. Gallup's 13%
• Evolved via God's guidance:: 18% (Theistic evolution); cf. Gallup's 38% for
• Don't know: 14%

(2005-JUL-7 and 17, Pew Research)

THis shows my point made above that the majority of creationists deny all evolution, even the specieation that some YEC's incorrectly call microevolution.

​

You are undermining the historicity of Genesis and 'faith' itself while affirming neither:

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. (Hebrews 1:1-3)
​

Theistic Evolution fully agrees with Hebrews 1:1-3 (and the rest of one's chosen Bible as well, for that matter). We do understand that the universe was formed at God's command. Are you saying that God's command is not powerful enough to have used evolution as that formation mechanism in the case of life?

You simply ignore the Scriptures and whatever doesn't fit into you rhetorical rants.

says the person who ignores the Gospels of Mt and Lk in claiming that they say one gives the geneology of Mary, when they both say Joseph, and who further ignores the clear text of 1 Cr, which gives additional generations as compared to the geneology in the Gospel of Mt.

I noticed the Scriptural authority for the creation of Adam and the explicit link of Adam's sin to the sin of mankind were not worth even a passing comment. Typical TE rhetoric, devoid of canonical authority but zealously ranting about what it means to be a Christian.

OK, to be clear I will affirm that Adam as a single, real individual, who was the first human, transitional between ancient ape and human, and that it was his sin that brought about the need for Jesus' sacrifice. It fully agrees with Christian doctrine, as well as reality, right Mark?

Rest assured if you continue to ignore the Scriptures and fail to define your terms you will be seeing this challenge again.

Ignoring scripture, like you ignore the Gospels of Mt, Luke and 1st Chronicles?


Have a nice day

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

I heard you the first time, and the many times after that. Your idea is wrong.

Overwhelmingly the deleterious affects of mutations make your make your theory of adaptation meaningless. Sure there is an occasional beneficial affect but they are vastly out numbered by neutral, deleterious and lethal mutations. You got on the wrong horse

You've repeatedly said that as well, despite the numerous times we have pointed out belief in evolution does not lead to atheism. The majority of evolutionists are also theists.

No, evolution just insists on naturalistic assumptions that exclude God, no atheism there.

Yes it does, it shows that despite the increasing evidence that evolution is correct, personal faith was not affected as greatly as we thought ti would be.

My faith put my confidence in the reliability of the Scriptures, evolution as it is properly defined has nothing to do with the age of the earth or the origin of life. I don't know what you think is at stake here but the Christian faith has survived far worse then some humanistic philosophy.

 

[mark kennedy]

We have been over this many times. Not once have you shown that the effects of mutations on their host individuals is relevant to the change of alleles in populations over time.

I have not shown it because I don't think it's relevant. The genetic mechanisms that create adaptations have very little to do with random mutations.

What sort of change in alleles in a population do you expect when a deleterious mutation has entered the population via a dominant or co-dominant allele? via a recessive allele?

A harmful rather then an adaptive one.

How be you show us the likely trend in the distribution of alleles over several generations and explain the reason for this trend.

It depends on the allele.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark wrote: I agree that clear definitions are essential to a good discussion, so I've moved this to the front to clarify first. So, for the purposes of this discussion, I'll try these definitions in reference to members of the United States.

Ok, lets get on with it then.

A person for whom Jesus is centrally important to their religion. I generally avoid the "I'm Christianer than thou" approach, because that judgement is up to God, not me.

That's not a definition, that's a vague generality.

A change in allele frequency in a population over time. Note that this includes a change from an initial frequency of 0.

So you realize that the genuine article of science not define evolution as the a priori assumption of universal common descent. That leads to the question of why you equivocate the two.

In modern times, person with all of the following:

1. A Ph.D or equivalent degree from an accredited University
2. years of research in either industry or academia
3. publications of said original research in peer-reviewed scientific journals

So I guy with a masters in Biology isn't a real scientist his first day in the lab after graduation until he has a PHD, has been published and has years of research.

Why don't you start with a definition of science, I'll give you a hint, the word means knowledge.

In common usage, one who accepts the evolution of humans from earlier, chimp-like primates. I think this definition is more useful than just whether or not they deny evolution (see above), because a minority of YEC creationists also accept speciation, mistakenly calling it microevolution.

That is not what your definition says, by your definition everyone is an evolutionist. You make it propositional truth without a proper definition or a substantive reason for the change in meanings.

Mark, I didn't ignore them. I showed that they supported my statement that the majority of evolution supporters in the US are Christian. In fact because not only most of the founders of the field were Christian, and because most of the evolution supporters in the US are Christian today, it seems that Evolution is mainly a Christian idea.

Your all over the road with this one, see why you have to define your terms?

Mark, again, as I've shown, using your numbers over and over, the majority of those who support evolution are Christian. Do you still disagree that the majority of those who support evolution are Chrisitan? If so, on what basis, since your own statistics show it?

I disagree because for one thing you have shown me no numbers and the ones I have shown are very different from what you are saying.

So who cares? Academics are a tiny minority of the population, no matter what they believe.

Academia isn't a democracy, it's an oligarchy.

OK, since there are around 300 million Americans, that comes to around 300 * 0.45 ~ roughly 140 million. Why is that relevant to the statement that the majority of those who support evolution are Christian?

People who have an actual opinion are close to evenly split on the subject of origins, half being TE and the other half being Creationist or ID of some kind. That does not make evolution (the change of alleles...) a Christian concept.

OK, that comes to around 115 million.

So what?

OK, so that comes to around 39 million (300*.13).

And I'm back to so what?

OK, I will again for people like Mark who need the details spelled out for them. Of those who support evolution, we have 39+115=155 million.

Of those, 115 million are theistic evolutionists, Christians.

So of those who support evolution, 115/155 = over 70% are Christians. See how clear it is that the majority of those who support evolution are Christian? It's not even close, 70 is much more than 50%. If that were an election, we'd call it a landslide.

For one thing ID and TE are not necessarily Christian, unless we use your definition. With such a fast and loose definition anyone who thinks Jesus is 'important' to their religion is a Christian. That' really not the kind of a definition you would get from the New Testament.

What get's even worse? I don't see any way those statistics help you, Mark. Maybe be more clear about how you think they help you?

The statistics are a curiosity for me, nothing more.

THis shows my point made above that the majority of creationists deny all evolution, even the specieation that some YEC's incorrectly call microevolution.
​

You have shown nothing of the sort, there are a very few Christians that deny speciation, that's just plain silly.

Theistic Evolution fully agrees with Hebrews 1:1-3 (and the rest of one's chosen Bible as well, for that matter). We do understand that the universe was formed at God's command. Are you saying that God's command is not powerful enough to have used evolution as that formation mechanism in the case of life?

That's a rationalization not a profession of faith.

says the person who ignores the Gospels of Mt and Lk in claiming that they say one gives the geneology of Mary, when they both say Joseph, and who further ignores the clear text of 1 Cr, which gives additional generations as compared to the geneology in the Gospel of Mt.

A point of contention I defended successfully, reasonably and succinctly. That is exactly what the differences between the two genealogies mean and the fact is both are a genealogy of Jesus. You mimic an argument that unbelievers have used for a hundred years to undermine confidence in the Scriptures. Then when an answer to your shallow skepticism is refuted you go right back to the original argument as if it were defensible. Typical.

OK, to be clear I will affirm that Adam as a single, real individual, who was the first human, transitional between ancient ape and human, and that it was his sin that brought about the need for Jesus' sacrifice. It fully agrees with Christian doctrine, as well as reality, right Mark?

No, it denies the clear testimony of the Scriptures in favor of a worldly philosophy that rejects God as an explanation for anything.

Ignoring scripture, like you ignore the Gospels of Mt, Luke and 1st Chronicles?

The argument is flawed.

Have a nice day
Mark