Creationists: What are the reasons general acceptance of deep time and evolution

[TLK Valentine]

Because I exposed your lies? Fine

Other people have asked for an explanation - you can answer them instead.

If you can't actually explain what you think is wrong with evolution, your criticisms must be disregarded.

Although his criticisms have provided an answer for the OP's question: "What are the reasons [for the] general acceptance of deep time and evolution?"

It would seem that the answer is that the people who support those things do the work, while those against those things offer excuses.

 

[juvenissun]

So miracles are subjective experiences, then... No actual bending of natural laws, just the appearance of such to the individual who prayed for it.

So miracles are subjective experiences, then... No actual bending of natural laws, just the appearance of such to the observers

You have a quite low capability of understanding.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So miracles are subjective experiences, then... No actual bending of natural laws, just the appearance of such to the observers

You have a quite low capability of understanding.

You have no discernible capability of explaining.

Hey, good thing you're not a teacher, amirite?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

You have no discernible capability of explaining.

Hey, good thing you're not a teacher, amirite?

I'm betting he works in a call centre in India and uses this forum to try and get his own back.

 

[lesliedellow]

No need to be a constant or frequent or occasional intervention. Just once would be more than enough. It says that the evolution process can not function as it is suggested by evolutionist.

Would you care to explain why Ken Miller argued against Michael Behe's idea that God needed to intervene at all? Answer: Because every one of Behe's examples where supernatural intervention was supposed to be needed had a natural explanation.

Besides which, a God who couldn't set up an evolutionary process, that didn't need his constant intervention to fix its deficiencies, would be a fairly incompetent God.

So TE people are actually against the scientific evolution process. They do see big problems in that and can only call God to help.

Rubbish.

 

[juvenissun]

Would you care to explain why Ken Miller argued against Michael Behe's idea that God needed to intervene at all? Answer: Because every one of Behe's examples where supernatural intervention was supposed to be needed had a natural explanation.

Besides which, a God who couldn't set up an evolutionary process, that didn't need his constant intervention to fix its deficiencies, would be a fairly incompetent God.

Rubbish.

Useless empty talk.

If you care to see a real example (I don't have one), I will be with you. Then you probably will understand. I guess you would probably not want to do that. So far, I can argue against everyone of those "successful examples" of evolution.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Useless empty talk.

If you care to see a real example (I don't have one), I will be with you. Then you probably will understand. I guess you would probably not want to do that. So far, I can argue against everyone of those "successful examples" of evolution.

Yes, definitely an Indian call centre.

 

[Tallguy88]

MOD HAT ON​

This thread has undergone a cleanup. Please keep the following rules in mind:

Flaming and Harassment
● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue. Refrain from insulting, inflammatory, or goading remarks. When you disagree, remember to address the content of the post and not the poster personally.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.
● Be considerate and do not make another member's experience on this site miserable. This includes making false accusations or persistently attacking them in the open forums.

Vulgarity and Profanity
● Please do not post violent, disturbing, graphic, or sexually explicit images or text. Profanity or foul language is not allowed. This includes using punctuations or acronyms to bypass the profanity filter and a few non-censored words found here.
​

If a post of yours is missing, and you didn't receive a PM about it, it was deleted for quoting or addressing a post that was in violation of the rules.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[jzyehoshua]

This is a question for creationists, primarily young earth creationists.

What, in your opinion, is the reason that the scientific community - and the public more generally - accepts evolution as the prevailing model for biology and also deep time as the prevailing concepts for geology and cosmology?

Note that I'm not asking you to explain why you are a creationist or what you believe, or to defend your position.

What I'm interested in is what reasons you think that evolutionary biology is the generally accepted explanation for the diversity of life and that there is scientific concordance about the ages of the earth and the universe.

It is a scientific conspiracy? The influence of satan or other supernatural forces? Is it man deliberately misleading himself?

What is your explanation?

I disagree with the premise, Gallup polling reveals that between 42-46% of Americans are Young Earth Creationists, and that 39% say YEC is definitely true and 27% that it is probably true, a total of 66%. On the other hand, just 53% (18% definitely true, 35% probably true) say that evolution, man evolving from lesser beings over millions of years, is true. So I think most people believe more in creationism than evolution.

Only 25% of postgraduates according to the 2012 Gallup poll believe in young earth creationism, so the level is much lower among scientists, and 46% of college graduates do. However this is probably because the vast bulk of federal spending goes to subsidizing the evolution establishment. When combining federal, state, and local spending, the U.S. spends over $1 trillion on education each year, but less than $1 billion, 1/1000th of this, goes to private schools that teach creationism. Secular atheistic evolution-teaching schools are subsidized by the U.S. government despite the beliefs of most Americans. Furthermore, liberals are currently seeking to remove voucher programs that let parents send their children to creationist schools of their choice with their own tax dollars.

 

[CabVet]

On the other hand, just 53% (18% definitely true, 35% probably true) say that evolution, man evolving from lesser beings over millions of years, is true. So I think most people believe more in creationism than evolution.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't 53% qualify as "most people"?

 

[jzyehoshua]

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't 53% qualify as "most people"?

Even more people support Young Earth Creationism, 66%. 66% said Young Earth Creationism was definitely or probably true to only 53% that said Evolution was. This can be seen from Gallup's main polling on Creationism/Evolution.

 

[CabVet]

Even more people support Young Earth Creationism, 66%. 66% said Young Earth Creationism was definitely or probably true to only 53% that said Evolution was. This can be seen from Gallup's main polling on Creationism/Evolution.

Link?

 

[jzyehoshua]

Link?

This site doesn't allow me to provide hyperlinks. The source is "Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design" by Gallup.com though, response to the question "Next, we'd like to ask about your views on two different explanations for the origin and development of life on earth. Do you think -- [ITEMS ROTATED] -- is -- [ROTATED: definitely true, probably true, probably false, (or) definitely false]?"

 

[CabVet]

This site doesn't allow me to provide hyperlinks. The source is "Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design" by Gallup.com though, response to the question "Next, we'd like to ask about your views on two different explanations for the origin and development of life on earth. Do you think -- [ITEMS ROTATED] -- is -- [ROTATED: definitely true, probably true, probably false, (or) definitely false]?"

The questions asked are about humans, not the earth, therefore these polls cannot be used to determine the % that agree with YEC.

 

[jzyehoshua]

The questions asked are about humans, not the earth, therefore these polls cannot be used to determine the % that agree with YEC.

The question asked by Gallup was as follows:

Next, we'd like to ask about your views on two different explanations for the origin and development of life on earth. Do you think -- [ITEMS ROTATED] -- is -- [ROTATED: definitely true, probably true, probably false, (or) definitely false]?


A. Evolution, that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life

18% definitely true, 35% probably true, 16% probably false, 28% definitely false, 3% no opinion

B. Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years

39% definitely true, 27% probably true, 16% probably false, 15% definitely false, 3% no opinion

The poll was only taken once by Gallup, in June 2007.

 

[Michael]

The question asked by Gallup was as follows:



The poll was only taken once by Gallup, in June 2007.

I would point out however that "Creationism" and "Young Earth Creationism" aren't necessarily the same thing. Catholics may be "creationists", but they typically embrace an ancient Earth, and evolutionary theory.

 

[CabVet]

The question asked by Gallup was as follows:

The poll was only taken once by Gallup, in June 2007.

The questions asked are still about humans, not the earth, therefore these polls cannot be used to determine the % that agree with YEC. And this:

I would point out however that "Creationism" and "Young Earth Creationism" aren't necessarily the same thing. Catholics may be "creationists", but they typically embrace an ancient Earth, and evolutionary theory.

 

[Dizredux]

The question asked by Gallup was as follows:



The poll was only taken once by Gallup, in June 2007.

Here are two more recent ones. Not identical but similar.

Pew Research Center 2013 analysis, six-in-ten Americans (60%) say that
“humans and other living things have evolved over time,” while a third (33%) reject the idea of evolution,

Public’s Views on Human Evolution | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project


Gallop poll 2014: 42% created in current form. 19% evolved with no god involved and 31% evolution with God involved

Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design | Gallup Historical Trends

Just keeping things up to date.

Dizredux

 

[jzyehoshua]

Here are two more recent ones. Not identical but similar.

Pew Research Center 2013 analysis, six-in-ten Americans (60%) say that
“humans and other living things have evolved over time,” while a third (33%) reject the idea of evolution,

Gallop poll 2014: 42% created in current form. 19% evolved with no god involved and 31% evolution with God involved

Just keeping things up to date.

Dizredux

Gallup in 2012 had 46% at belief in young earth creationism so that is actually down following the disastrous Ken Ham debate, but I expect it to rebound. The Pew poll fails to properly categorize Young Earth Creationists though. I am a Young Earth Creationist who does not believe humans have existed in present form for example. I believe human bodies have adapted since the Flood from a 900 year lifespan to a 120 year maximum lifespan per Genesis 5 and 6:3. So the Pew poll isn't actually differentiating between YECs and Evolutionists.

 

[CabVet]

Gallup in 2012 had 46% at belief in young earth creationism so that is actually down following the disastrous Ken Ham debate, but I expect it to rebound.

Why do you keep repeating this if it is not what the poll says? No questions about the age of the earth were asked.