Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design-Gallup Poll

[mark kennedy]

You keep saying these things that I don't believe you yourself believe, like:

That's because they would.

What does that phrase mean, mark? What, precisely, is a devastating infection of the germ line with endogenous retroviruses? Surely you must know, as "devastating" is not an adjective to be appended lightly to a fiction of no substance.

Your not really looking at this. The proposal is that 8% of the human genome is the result of viral infections that insert themselves in germline cells. We know what these kind of viruses do to the immune system, what possible reason do we have to suppose it would be any less deleterious to the germline. I can't think of a place where viral infections would be more devastating.

Being infected with Ebola virus, for example, is devastating. Your body turns into a walking contagion machine as virus turns your blood to slush.

Indeed, for a better comparison we could talk about HIV, that's where most of the research is anyway. All these viruses do is to replicate themselves, depleting vital resources as a result. When HIV viruses hijack white blood cells it destroys the cell, it staggers the imagination what would happen during the early stages of development. It seems unlikely that the embryo would stand a chance.

Being infected with picornavirus in the respiratory tract, on the other hand, is not devastating. Your body turns into a walking contagion machine as virus turns your nose into slush, but it turns out it's easier to live with your nose full of slush than your blood full of slush. That's why a picornavirus respiratory infection is also called the common cold.

Yea and when HIV invades the white blood cells that cold can kill you.

So tell me, mark, what happens when a human suffers an endogenous retroviral invasion of the germline? Do they turn green? Sniffle and sweat? Puke blood and spontaneously combust? Develop mystical telekinetic mutant powers? Might they even (God forbid, the horror!) become an evolutionist?

Wow, you really don't understand this, you must be out of practice. When the virus inserts itself into the germline the effects depend on where they are inserted and whether or not they disrupt the step wise logic of their development. The only way you get a viral infection like we are talking about is in the earliest part of embryo development, when the organism is still stem cells.

I'm not just being frivolous, mark, because I can see your brain misleading you as the letters "viral" and "invasion" together in the same sentence conjure up some kind of contagious apocalypse, and your bounteous imagination sparking off that phrase is literally the only thing convincing you (and not convincing any of us) that the profusion of ERVs in human and chimp genomes is somehow a problem for evolutionary timelines. Not only that, but it may be a wonderful day for me, for I may be wrong. So go ahead, mark, tell me:

No no, I'm not imagining anything of the sort. The HIV invasion that turns into full blown AIDS is what happens when an ERV is inserted into the genome of white blood cells. I'll tell you what, why don't you look at an example of a germ line invasion, then we can talk some more.

Koalas are currently undergoing a wave of germline infections by the retrovirus KoRV. Study of this phenomenon not only provides an opportunity for understanding the processes regulating retrovirus endogenization but may also be essential to preventing the extinction of the species. (Koala retrovirus: a genome invasion in real time)​

What exactly is an endogenous retroviral invasion of the germline?

Protein coding reading frames that have somehow been separated from their original system. They invade the genome, simply inserting themselves at specific insertion points. Because of how cell duplication if they are in the original germline they will be replicated into every cell that is descended from them. If we are talking the first 4 or 8 cells it will be in all cells.

Given the hierarchical, step-wise logic or "architecture" of animal development, early stages such as cleavage and gastrulation lay the groundwork for all that follows. Body plan structures in the adult, for example, trace their cellular lineage to these early stages. Thus, if macroevolution is going to occur, it must begin in early development. Yet it is precisely here, in early development, that organisms are least tolerant of mutations. Furthermore, the adult homologies shared by these vertebrates commence at remarkably different points (e.g., cleavage patterns). How then did these different starting points evolve from a common ancestor?​

Cleavage Stage

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

Well, I'm going to poke the hornets nest.

I am still greatly encouraged that the non-evolutionary model is holding its own in the poll. We find slightly less than half of the responders agree with it. Personally, I think that's still a little high for us to be entering the last days.

God bless you all.
In Christ, Ted

 

[shernren]

Okay mark, good to see you start to read up on specifics. There is a good little snippet in the koala paper on what actually happens to integrated proviruses, but let's tackle this in little baby steps:

What does the word "endogenous" in "endogenous retrovirus" actually mean?

 

[shernren]

As a complete aside, my cursory background research has led to what is probably the most bizarre genetic hypotheses I've ever seen in my life: the human testis may have exapted ERV sequences to stave off cell death while under stress. This cries out to be the subject of some form of lewd joke, but this is Christian Forums here.

(This makes some sense because viruses are prone to stress the cells they infect, and it would be beneficial to the virus to prevent cells from dying prematurely under that stress, hence any virus worth its salt must have "anti-apoptotic" functions that prevent cell death. It is also beneficial for germline cells to not die too quickly, or else how would they accumulate all those juicy mutations to pass on to the next generation? This also relates to the suspicion some cancer researchers have about the role of viral infections - and, yes, ERVs - in causing cancer, since viruses mess with the genomes of the cells they infect and cancer is basically cells refusing to die i.e. having anti-apoptotic functions.)

Repeated Recruitment of LTR Retrotransposons as Promoters by the Anti-Apoptotic Locus NAIP during Mammalian Evolution (see page 14 for the hypothesis)

 

[mark kennedy]

Okay mark, good to see you start to read up on specifics. There is a good little snippet in the koala paper on what actually happens to integrated proviruses, but let's tackle this in little baby steps:

What does the word "endogenous" in "endogenous retrovirus" actually mean?

Um well, 'growing or originating from within an organism.' Why?

As a complete aside, my cursory background research has led to what is probably the most bizarre genetic hypotheses I've ever seen in my life: the human testis may have exapted ERV sequences to stave off cell death while under stress. This cries out to be the subject of some form of lewd joke, but this is Christian Forums here.

(This makes some sense because viruses are prone to stress the cells they infect, and it would be beneficial to the virus to prevent cells from dying prematurely under that stress, hence any virus worth its salt must have "anti-apoptotic" functions that prevent cell death. It is also beneficial for germline cells to not die too quickly, or else how would they accumulate all those juicy mutations to pass on to the next generation? This also relates to the suspicion some cancer researchers have about the role of viral infections - and, yes, ERVs - in causing cancer, since viruses mess with the genomes of the cells they infect and cancer is basically cells refusing to die i.e. having anti-apoptotic functions.)

Repeated Recruitment of LTR Retrotransposons as Promoters by the Anti-Apoptotic Locus NAIP during Mammalian Evolution (see page 14 for the hypothesis)

Interesting article, it reminds me of the research I stumbled onto on RNA strands being transcribed from gene deserts and various other non-functioning sequences.

This repeated ERV recruitment by NAIP genes throughout evolution is very unlikely to have occurred by chance.​

I don't know but these are basically chemical functions. Maybe the NIAP just looks for a particular sequence, unconcerned with were it happens to find it.

Anyway, thanks for the link, it's been a while since anyone's actually thrown something substantive into the mix.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi all,

Well, I'm going to poke the hornets nest.

I am still greatly encouraged that the non-evolutionary model is holding its own in the poll. We find slightly less than half of the responders agree with it. Personally, I think that's still a little high for us to be entering the last days.

God bless you all.
In Christ, Ted

The creationist numbers fluctuate between 42% and 47% but sure, they have held relatively steady. What bothers me is the nearly constant increase of non-theistic views.

 

[MKJ]

I haven't read the whole 11 pages here, so excuse me if I am being repetitive.

But it strikes me that the success of atheistic materialism may be directly related to the success of YEC.

THat is, people have believed those fundamentalists who say to be a Christian you must be a modern-creationist, and so they have given up on Christianity as being contrary to reason and observation.

I do have to say - I am not crazy about the way the options are worded. When God himself includes the logos, the reason of creation, it doesn't really make sense to talk about material reality to be guided or unguided by Him. And no more does it make sense for an "scientific" atheist to think reality unfolds apart from the fundamental laws or reason that shape reality.

 

[shernren]

Um well, 'growing or originating from within an organism.' Why?

So why are endogenous retroviruses called endogenous if (according to you) they invaded the germline? And remind me again, how on earth does the profusion of ERVs in the human genome form any argument whatsoever against evolution?

 

[NannaNae]

The culture wars are over and it looks the whole evolution/creation controversy is fading away. Creationism is going up, atheistic materialism is remaining static and it appears Theistic Evolution is on the decline.

Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design

We've discussed the Gallup polls before but this one is pretty recent. If you check the right hand column there are some other interesting statistics as well. So where are you in the spectrum of opinion on the subject?

Grace and peace,
Mark

I don't want to vote for those . because it doesn't have the option
of what the bible really says.

" we are created in more advanced form and we are De-evolving or de - evolved at the fall of man.. "

I vote for that one! ^

6fingers on the 6thday!

 

[mark kennedy]

So why are endogenous retroviruses called endogenous if (according to you) they invaded the germline? And remind me again, how on earth does the profusion of ERVs in the human genome form any argument whatsoever against evolution?

Sounds like your getting it a little twisted, I'm saying the deleterious effects make a germline invasion on the scale required is a formula for disaster. What is more I have never argued against 'evolution', as you well know, my arguments are directed at the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means, aka, Darwinism.

They look like broken reading frames to me, just don't intend to assume anything about supposed ERV germline invasions.

So how's the background reading coming?

 

[mark kennedy]

I haven't read the whole 11 pages here, so excuse me if I am being repetitive.

But it strikes me that the success of atheistic materialism may be directly related to the success of YEC.

THat is, people have believed those fundamentalists who say to be a Christian you must be a modern-creationist, and so they have given up on Christianity as being contrary to reason and observation.

I do have to say - I am not crazy about the way the options are worded. When God himself includes the logos, the reason of creation, it doesn't really make sense to talk about material reality to be guided or unguided by Him. And no more does it make sense for an "scientific" atheist to think reality unfolds apart from the fundamental laws or reason that shape reality.

I'm not so sure, the Creationist view bounces from 42% to 47% and has the entire time the survey has been maintained. Meanwhile Theistic Evolution has went from 38% to to 39%, while atheistic (or naturalistic) has went from 9% to 19%, almost the same margin. I suspect Theistic Evolutionists are simply drifting into the atheistic view not that their view is all that different to begin with. You can't put this one on fundamentalists, the defectors to an atheistic worldview are most likely coming from theistic evolution.

 

[MKJ]

I'm not so sure, the Creationist view bounces from 42% to 47% and has the entire time the survey has been maintained. Meanwhile Theistic Evolution has went from 38% to to 39%, while atheistic (or naturalistic) has went from 9% to 19%, almost the same margin. I suspect Theistic Evolutionists are simply drifting into the atheistic view not that their view is all that different to begin with. You can't put this one on fundamentalists, the defectors to an atheistic worldview are most likely coming from theistic evolution.

I wouldn't assume you are talking about the same pool of people at all.

 

[mark kennedy]

I wouldn't assume you are talking about the same pool of people at all.

1999 the naturalistic view is at 9%, a low point, while TE rises to 40% a high point. Now TE is at 31% which is a low point while the naturalistic view is at 19%, an all time high. The creationist view still bounces between 42% and 47% the way it has since the inception of the survey.

Assume they are the same pool of people? The attitude toward creationists is virtually identical, they have more in common with one another then either has with a Biblical account of creation. While the statistics are not conclusive or definitive, they do show a strong correlation with the fluctuations in TE and those of a naturalistic view.

You can't lay this on creationists, this is due almost entirely, to the contentious nature of TE toward a literal creation. An attitude that is either predominately, or entirely, naturalistic.

"The issue is not the age of the earth, but biblical authority. If you can't trust Genesis, you can't trust the Bible." Without the Genesis explanation of "original sin" corrupting God's perfect Creation, there would be no need for a Savior to save us from its consequences, and no explanation for the disease, suffering and death we observe despite "God's goodness". I decided--and taught--that if you're going to invest your life in a religion...​

Why I gave up YEC, and then Christianity

It rambles in circles after that. This is where it's going, you reject creation and the rest of Scripture is necessarily false. Like she says, it's not the age of the earth, what's at stake here is the authority of Scripture.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[MKJ]

1999 the naturalistic view is at 9%, a low point, while TE rises to 40% a high point. Now TE is at 31% which is a low point while the naturalistic view is at 19%, an all time high. The creationist view still bounces between 42% and 47% the way it has since the inception of the survey.

Assume they are the same pool of people? The attitude toward creationists is virtually identical, they have more in common with one another then either has with a Biblical account of creation. While the statistics are not conclusive or definitive, they do show a strong correlation with the fluctuations in TE and those of a naturalistic view.

You can't lay this on creationists, this is due almost entirely, to the contentious nature of TE toward a literal creation. An attitude that is either predominately, or entirely, naturalistic.

"The issue is not the age of the earth, but biblical authority. If you can't trust Genesis, you can't trust the Bible." Without the Genesis explanation of "original sin" corrupting God's perfect Creation, there would be no need for a Savior to save us from its consequences, and no explanation for the disease, suffering and death we observe despite "God's goodness". I decided--and taught--that if you're going to invest your life in a religion...​

Why I gave up YEC, and then Christianity

It rambles in circles after that. This is where it's going, you reject creation and the rest of Scripture is necessarily false. Like she says, it's not the age of the earth, what's at stake here is the authority of Scripture.

Have a nice day
Mark

What I am suggesting is that it is atheists who convert to Christianity that are an important factor, not so much movements from either of the Christian positions to any of the others.

Increasingly, in the United States, the fundamentalist position has dominated the conversation, and it isn't uncommon for non-christians to have had very little contact with Christianity other than through the media. So many non-Christians today believe that to be a Christian, you must accept Biblical literalism and creationsim. A few think that the options are fundamentalism, or a kind of social-club Church that doesn't really believe much at all, and they reasonably think that is stupid.

They have never had the opportunity to discover that there is intellectually coherent Christianity that is also orthodox in its beliefs. So all of those people are lost, because the fundamentalists keep shouting that you can only be a Christian if you read the Bible like a 19th century reactionary.

 

[mark kennedy]

What I am suggesting is that it is atheists who convert to Christianity that are an important factor, not so much movements from either of the Christian positions to any of the others.

I'm not getting that at all, what I'm seeing is a full court press on the part of a naturalistic view that rejects any theistic inference whatsoever, especially with regards to miracles, especially creation. What used to be regarded as essential doctrine is now categorically condemned as narrow minded dogma. Most churches are complicit in this trend.

Increasingly, in the United States, the fundamentalist position has dominated the conversation, and it isn't uncommon for non-christians to have had very little contact with Christianity other than through the media. So many non-Christians today believe that to be a Christian, you must accept Biblical literalism and creationsim. A few think that the options are fundamentalism, or a kind of social-club Church that doesn't really believe much at all, and they reasonably think that is stupid.

I'm currently studying at a Bible college and after two years, not once have I seen literalism or the doctrine of creation discussed at all. It's mostly socialization which is symptomatic of a worldview that deprecates the clear testimony of Scripture. What you call fundamentalists I would consider revivalists and my only real problem with them is their theology is invariably emotionally based.

They have never had the opportunity to discover that there is intellectually coherent Christianity that is also orthodox in its beliefs. So all of those people are lost, because the fundamentalists keep shouting that you can only be a Christian if you read the Bible like a 19th century reactionary.

I know these people and what they are most focused on is evangelism and world missions, especially the Baptists and Pentecostals. Most seminary trained ministers never learn the Scriptures and they are selected, most of the time, for their stage presence far more often then doctrinal or theological convictions.

The 19th century 'reactionaries' are a part of a mosaic of traditions that have fallen like dominoes to Modernism. Fundamentalists are preaching the Gospel to whosoever will and the media what's to characterize them as fanatics and frauds. I know these people and you will never know anything about them watching the secular media.

The problem is if you don't buy into the naturalistic assumptions and higher criticisms of modern academics you are immediately considered ignorant. This is evident and obvious across broad social lines and an unfair, untrue and profoundly prejudicial bias toward anything remotely theistic.

I don't know if Theistic Evolutionists think they are being balanced or rational but antagonism toward essential doctrine is never justified in a Christian context. The only denomination I know of that seems immune to this venom are the Pentecostal churches because of a long tradition of shunning divisive and contentious arguments.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your thoughtful response. I just have a strong opinion to the contrary.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

Papias wrote:

1. Still waiting for mark to either support his "20 million years ago" "massive germline invasion", or admit he's wrong.

I was talking about chimpanzee ERVs and showed you extensive details. It's not my fault if you ignored it.

I didn't ignore it, mark, I directly responded to it in post #137, where I wrote:

"mark, your statement hurts your own argument for two reasons. First, the data you gave has different ERVs coming in at a wide range of times, directly contradicting your "20 million years ago" "massive germline invasion". Second, your "20 million years ago" is long before the human/chimp split, so it doesn't matter which you mean."


Did you miss that by accident, or ignore it?

#6. Mark's new claim that it's impossible that 8% of the human genome is the result of germ line invasions.

That's an assumption, I don't really have counter-claims for presuppositional biology.

No mark, you made the claim, now either defend it or admit you have no basis to disagree with the experts on their conclusion (which isn't an assumption).

I think I see a pattern here. When you disagree with the conclusions of the experts (such as common descent), you call them "assumptions".

#7. Also waiting on whether or not you deny that impact craters are from impacts, since you didn't answer that either.

Impact craters? Seriously?

another non-answer. Do you or do you not deny that impact craters are from impacts?

#8. Also waiting to find out you deny that that ERVs are previously viral DNA?.

No, ERVs are viruses but they are not the source of 8% of the human genome, it's just an absurd assumption.

I quoted 5-8% above, not "8%". Do you deny that these viruses make up 5-8% of the human genome?

Too vague to be meaningful. How rare? 1 in a million years? How "dangerous"? Too dangerous to be passed on? Those would be real claims.

It never happens, that should be giving you a clue. Even with the Phoenix virus they could not avoid frameshifts.

It never happens? I thought you just agreed that ERVs were really viruses. How are ERVs former viruses if a virus getting into the germline "never happens"?

(note that I removed both your denial of using trash talk, as well your additional trash talk that immediately followed the denial, disproving the denail itself.)

Your just plain full of bologna, that's my retort.

Oh, the irony.....

9. Waiting for support for your claim that mendelian genetics doesn't support common descent.

Genetics like real world life sciences focus on living systems not dead ancestors.

a non-answer. All sciences give us information about the past.

Listen Papias, I'm not answering your accusations because their pointless and because I am very busy right now.

I understand, we are all busy. Even the ones you answered above do little to argue against those, and the earlier ones (last laid out in Post #137) of course still stand.

I don't know about the rest but I always thought you would benefit greatly from taking a good hard look at the life sciences. I'm not trying to be kind and I'm not trying to be condescending, I really think you would get a lot out of it.

Really, mark - after all the biology howlers you've posted on this thread and others, you don't seem to understand that others know more biology than you. I agree that biology is fascinating, that why I've studied it. I'm not a biologist (doing biology research), but I have taught it and obviously "looked into it" a lot more than you have.

such as this one:

I know for a fact that Mendelian Genetics is far more substantive then Darwinism.

This is a howler because Mendelian Genetics, is integrated part of the Modern Synthesis, and saying it is more substantive than another integrated part of the Modern Synthesis is like saying that changes in energy are more substantive than changes in entropy when one studies chemistry. "Mendelian Genetics" hasn't been seen as a separate topic in disagreement with common descent for about 100 years.

You can't put this one on fundamentalists, the defectors to an atheistic worldview are most likely coming from theistic evolution.

You have conflated two different things here, mark. One is "where they are coming from" (and I agree that at it looks like at least some come from TE, though some likely from the creationist camp too.) Also, don't forget that a shift can happen even if no one changes their view, because people die. For instance, we know that creationists, on average, are older. As they die, and are replaced by new births, the creationist line can decrease with no one every changing their view.

The other is "why they left" - that's where your claim is. You could well have a situation where TE's leave because they keep being pushed out by creationists telling them they have to reject the scientific evidence for evolution to be "Christian" enough. In that case, it's clearly the fault of the creationists. That, in fact, seems to be what is happening, suggested by teens being driven out of Christianity by creationists the same way.

We don't have to guess at that - it's what the teens themselves tell us:

https://www.barna.org/teens-next-gen-articles/528-six-reasons-young-christians-leave-church

In Christ-

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. (An Essay on the Principle of Population)​

I wonder if over population has any bearing on a pro-life view. Tell you what, we can discuss that later.

"mark, your statement hurts your own argument for two reasons. First, the data you gave has different ERVs coming in at a wide range of times, directly contradicting your "20 million years ago" "massive germline invasion". Second, your "20 million years ago" is long before the human/chimp split, so it doesn't matter which you mean."

That has been explained along with the quote, citation and link, something you never do while spamming these pointless ad hominem fallacies.

Did you miss that by accident, or ignore it?

There he goes again, round around the mulberry bush...

No mark, you made the claim, now either defend it or admit you have no basis to disagree with the experts on their conclusion (which isn't an assumption).

They are gone Papias, your performing to an empty theater.

I think I see a pattern here. When you disagree with the conclusions of the experts (such as common descent), you call them "assumptions".

There's a pattern alright, if you don't make naturalistic assumptions going all the way back to, and including the Big Bang, you must be ignorant. That's the pattern but atheistic materialism is against my religion.

another non-answer. Do you or do you not deny that impact craters are from impacts?

I've seen you wander off on tangents but now random craters. Wow...really?

I quoted 5-8% above, not "8%". Do you deny that these viruses make up 5-8% of the human genome?

They are not viruses, they are broken reading frames. Of course, you have no idea what that is because you don't have to learn science to pontificate to creationists, just deny that God did anything in circles.

It never happens? I thought you just agreed that ERVs were really viruses. How are ERVs former viruses if a virus getting into the germline "never happens"?

Does HIV invade DNA? What happens to the genetic code when that happens?

All sciences give us information about the past.

Define science.

I understand, we are all busy. Even the ones you answered above do little to argue against those, and the earlier ones (last laid out in Post #137) of course still stand.

I don't answer your questions in circles, I would have thought you would catch on to that by now.

Really, mark - after all the biology howlers you've posted on this thread and others, you don't seem to understand that others know more biology than you. I agree that biology is fascinating, that why I've studied it. I'm not a biologist (doing biology research), but I have taught it and obviously "looked into it" a lot more than you have.

Not a chance. You would have spammed it back into the stone age by now.

This is a howler because Mendelian Genetics, is integrated part of the Modern Synthesis, and saying it is more substantive than another integrated part of the Modern Synthesis is like saying that changes in energy are more substantive than changes in entropy when one studies chemistry. "Mendelian Genetics" hasn't been seen as a separate topic in disagreement with common descent for about 100 years.

No, Darwinism piggy backed into the Life Sciences because the leading academics of the time were atheists. The Liberal Revolution in Europe strong armed their universities into adopting a naturalistic world view, then they came to the U.S. and poisoned the well across the board. Darwinism has never been anything other then naturalistic assumptions pretending to be science. The problem is, they have no cause.

You have conflated two different things here, mark. One is "where they are coming from" (and I agree that at it looks like at least some come from TE, though some likely from the creationist camp too.) Also, don't forget that a shift can happen even if no one changes their view, because people die. For instance, we know that creationists, on average, are older. As they die, and are replaced by new births, the creationist line can decrease with no one every changing their view.

Or the Theistic Evolutionists are simply drifting into a naturalistic world view and abandoning theistic reasoning altogether.

• In 1999 the naturalistic view is at 9%, a low point, while TE rises to 40% a high point.
• Now TE is at 31% which is a low point while the naturalistic view is at 19%, an all time high.
• The creationist view still bounces between 42% and 47% the way it has since the inception of the survey.

Pretty obvious really.

The other is "why they left" - that's where your claim is. You could well have a situation where TE's leave because they keep being pushed out by creationists telling them they have to reject the scientific evidence for evolution to be "Christian" enough. In that case, it's clearly the fault of the creationists. That, in fact, seems to be what is happening, suggested by teens being driven out of Christianity by creationists the same way.

I've seen what passes for Creationism in the churches and it has nothing to do with the doctrine of creation. They are leaving churches because there is nothing there for them.

We don't have to guess at that - it's what the teens themselves tell us:

https://www.barna.org/teens-next-gen-articles/528-six-reasons-young-christians-leave-church

In Christ-

Papias

Oh no, not a random link you didn't even bother to quote! Whatever shall I do!:

Reason #1 – Churches seem overprotective.

• “church ignoring the problems of the real world” (22%)
• “my church is too concerned that movies, music, and video games are harmful” (18%).

Don't forget rock and roll, that was one of my reasons.

Reason #2 – Teens’ and twentysomethings’ experience of Christianity is shallow.

• One-third said “church is boring” (31%).
• One-quarter of these young adults said that “faith is not relevant to my career or interests” (24%)
• “the Bible is not taught clearly or often enough” (23%).
• Sadly, one-fifth of these young adults who attended a church as a teenager said that “God seems missing from my experience of church” (20%).

Boring, irrelevant and God is missing. That couldn't have anything to do with Liberal Theology poisoning the well in seminaries. I never like trying to find God in church, the guides invariably send you out to chase ghosts in the fog. That requisite ambiguity in Liberal Theology is invariably the culprit.

Reason #3 – Churches come across as antagonistic to science.

• “Christians are too confident they know all the answers” (35%).
• Three out of ten young adults with a Christian background feel that “churches are out of step with the scientific world we live in” (29%).
• Another one-quarter embrace the perception that “Christianity is anti-science” (25%).
• And nearly the same proportion (23%) said they have “been turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate.”

One in four are turned off by the Creation/Evolution thing. I'd say the number is far higher among practicing Christians then the survey would indicate. I do what I can to encourage that.

Reason #4 – Young Christians’ church experiences related to sexuality are often simplistic, judgmental.

• One-sixth of young Christians (17%) said they “have made mistakes and feel judged in church because of them.”
• The issue of sexuality is particularly salient among 18- to 29-year-old Catholics, among whom two out of five (40%) said the church’s “teachings on sexuality and birth control are out of date.”

Preaching against sexual immorality, yea, that's bad for Christianity right?

Reason #5 – They wrestle with the exclusive nature of Christianity.

• Three out of ten young Christians (29%) said “churches are afraid of the beliefs of other faiths”
• and an identical proportion felt they are “forced to choose between my faith and my friends.”
• One-fifth of young adults with a Christian background said “church is like a country club, only for insiders” (22%).

Oh sure, Christ being the only way to salvation is such a deterrent to faith except it's the whole point of the Gospel.

Reason #6 – The church feels unfriendly to those who doubt.

• Some of the perceptions in this regard include not being able “to ask my most pressing life questions in church” (36%)
• having “significant intellectual doubts about my faith” (23%).
• their faith “does not help with depression or other emotional problems” they experience (18%).

That's true, church people don't like Christian Apologetics, giving answers for faith is just too much trouble.

I really don't know what you think you accomplish doing this but it looks like we are the last ones left. I'm sure going to miss the creation/evolution debate. All I know for sure is that had the churches won the culture wars the topic would be impossible to navigate. I guess an empty theater isn't so bad except we are the only ones left to clean up and your too busy bouncing your voice off the walls to help. Guess I'll grab a broom...

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

something you never do while spamming these pointless ad hominem fallacies.
......There he goes again, round around the mulberry bush...

.....They are gone Papias, your performing to an empty theater.

......I've seen you wander off on tangents but now random craters. Wow...really?
......
Of course, you have no idea what that is because you don't have to learn science to pontificate to creationists, just deny that God did anything in circles.
.....
Not a chance. You would have spammed it back into the stone age by now.

mark, again and again you are giving non-answers instead of answering the point. Your responses are often unrelated to the point you answer. If you disagree with the points numbered in my last post, then answer them. If not, they it's clear you don't have a leg to stand on.

in post #157, mark wrote:
​

They are not viruses, they are broken reading frames

.

While in post #139, mark wrote

ERVs are viruses

Mark, you are arguing against yourself. It's a little disturbing to watch.

It never happens? I thought you just agreed that ERVs were really viruses. How are ERVs former viruses if a virus getting into the germline "never happens"?

Does HIV invade DNA? What happens to the genetic code when that happens?

Again a non-answer. Please answer the question.

All sciences give us information about the past.

Define science.

Again, mark, you seem to be dictionary-challenged. You have as much access to dictionaries as I do. Would you like me to take the time to look up and post the definition for you, or do you think you are capable of looking it up yourself?
​

I don't answer your questions in circles, I would have thought you would catch on to that by now.

Newsflash, mark - this is a "discussion board". If you want to just post random words instead of having a discussion, you may want to look into posting on a thing called a "blog".

​

This is a howler because Mendelian Genetics, is integrated part of the Modern Synthesis, and saying it is more substantive than another integrated part of the Modern Synthesis is like saying that changes in energy are more substantive than changes in entropy when one studies chemistry. "Mendelian Genetics" hasn't been seen as a separate topic in disagreement with common descent for about 100 years.

No, Darwinism piggy backed into the Life Sciences because the leading academics of the time were atheists.

So now you are denying that natural selection, mendelian genetics, and common descent are somehow in disagreement with each other? Again and again it seems that you never made it past 1930.


I'll wait for some support that the leading academics were atheists. I'm sure some were and some weren't, just like any other group of real humans, but of course they weren't all atheists. There were Christians among them as well, as shown by examples like Fisher and others.

The other is "why they left" - that's where your claim is. You could well have a situation where TE's leave because they keep being pushed out by creationists telling them they have to reject the scientific evidence for evolution to be "Christian" enough. In that case, it's clearly the fault of the creationists. That, in fact, seems to be what is happening, suggested by teens being driven out of Christianity by creationists the same way.

I've seen what passes for Creationism in the churches and it has nothing to do with the doctrine of creation. They are leaving churches because there is nothing there for them.

No mark, I'm talking about creationism such as your creationism - the denial of evidence out of a position of ignorance, interspersed with obviously false statements (howlers, pointed out above) as well as repeated fallacies.

​

Oh no, not a random link you didn't even bother to quote! Whatever shall I do!:

....... I'd say the number is far higher among practicing Christians then the survey would indicate. I do what I can to encourage that.

Well, it's good to see you agreed with me (and the survey data) that a significant number of Christians are leaving due to the conflict caused by creationism. I (still) find it sad that you encourage that conflict.

As for your responses to all the other points of the survey - they aren't relevant to the topic of this thread. If you'd like to discuss them, you certainly are free to do so. They have a whole subforum for you, at apologetics, and elsewhere.

http://www.christianforums.com/f237/

Enjoy-

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

mark, again and again you are giving non-answers instead of answering the point. Your responses are often unrelated to the point you answer. If you disagree with the points numbered in my last post, then answer them. If not, they it's clear you don't have a leg to stand on.

You will continue to get non-answers to non-questions. You don't like it, ask real questions.

Mark, you are arguing against yourself. It's a little disturbing to watch.

It's disturbing alright but I'm not the one arguing in circles about anything or nothing at all.

Again a non-answer. Please answer the question.

Ask a real question.

Again, mark, you seem to be dictionary-challenged. You have as much access to dictionaries as I do. Would you like me to take the time to look up and post the definition for you, or do you think you are capable of looking it up yourself?

I know the definition and you know the definition, I just want you to honestly admit to it.

Newsflash, mark - this is a "discussion board". If you want to just post random words instead of having a discussion, you may want to look into posting on a thing called a "blog".

Don't you get dizzy arguing in circles?

So now you are denying that natural selection, mendelian genetics, and common descent are somehow in disagreement with each other? Again and again it seems that you never made it past 1930.

They are in disagreement otherwise there would have been no need for a synthesis.

I'll wait for some support that the leading academics were atheists. I'm sure some were and some weren't, just like any other group of real humans, but of course they weren't all atheists. There were Christians among them as well, as shown by examples like Fisher and others.

If your waiting for me to chase your arguments in circles I suggest you don't hold your breath.

No mark, I'm talking about creationism such as your creationism - the denial of evidence out of a position of ignorance, interspersed with obviously false statements (howlers, pointed out above) as well as repeated fallacies.

You are the one who equivocates science with supposition and spend all your time on here making the same tired, empty fallacious ad hominem arguments. You got a nerve calling someone else fallacious.

Well, it's good to see you agreed with me (and the survey data) that a significant number of Christians are leaving due to the conflict caused by creationism. I (still) find it sad that you encourage that conflict.

There is no conflict caused by Creationism, it's just an interesting intellectual sidebar. People are leaving the faith because they have made the Darwinian naturalistic assumptions that make them atheistic materialists.

As for your responses to all the other points of the survey - they aren't relevant to the topic of this thread. If you'd like to discuss them, you certainly are free to do so. They have a whole subforum for you, at apologetics, and elsewhere.

Creationism is, evidential apologetics.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[BobRyan]

They have never had the opportunity to discover that there is intellectually coherent Christianity that is also orthodox in its beliefs. .

We all know about them - they are what we call Bible believing evangelical Christianity - who take the historic accounts literally while at the same time accepting those sections that are purely symbolic - as ... symbolic.

Many among them are scientists, engineers, inventors, etc.

in Christ,

Bob