How many Christians agree with evolutionary theory?

[ForeRunner]

PRATTS make me sad

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Your answer is evolutionists make it up, pull it out of their butts, fudge it, lie, play pretend.....you pick the phrase.

As they say in poker, put up or shut up. Prove that "evolutionists make it up."

I've run across reflect that the majority still don't contribute their surroundings to evolution's theory, but to God and young Earth creation.

And how many of those people have a higher education, especially in the sciences? Young earth creationism is a very tiny minority in the scientific community for a good reason.

But the evolutionists see this a challenge to continue an elaborate "assumption story". After all, where else can they receive government money to study a fictional story and continue their writing careers?


Creation Story = Reality ; Assumption Story = Make your Own Rules

Evolution is neither an "assumption" nor is it a "story." Evolution is a CONCLUSION derived from all available data.

I hope you will begin to look at the matter with some degree of honesty for a change instead of spreading libelous comments about the scientific community.

 

[solar_mirth]

i will stand by my statements. those birds/dinosaurs in that link you provided are still extremely controversial. the archaeopterix has been proven false on numerous occasions. i'm waiting for a transitional fossil that was found as a single, complete fossil. random parts put together do not a fossil make. that's how lucy (australapithecus africanus) was made. and she was horribly wrong. call me a liar all you want, but proof is still lacking.

 

[solar_mirth]

or rather, supporting evidence.

 

[ForeRunner]

soo funny. I grew up in Southern and North west USA, moving to a different location or state every few years. I was born in florida, lived in- New zealand, colorado, montana, arkansas, virginia, Idaho, never once do I remember finding a christian church that accepted Evolution. not that I ever looked, but I have attended dozens and dozens of christian churches in my life...every one of them antievolution

I live in the Northeast, and I have had a completely different experience. I never even heard of creationism or the macro-micro thing until I was in college. Someone from the south posted her why evolution is wrong thread on a forum I am a member of. Needless to say I intellectually trounced them, but they did the usual creationist thing and said I was wrong anyway.

The only other people I ever met that were creationists were my grandparents (both over 80) and some kids I met when I helped out at the local community center.

Churches around here mostly accept evolution. Both my girlfriends parents are ministers and both of them have B.S. degrees in biology, it doesn't conflict for them.

 

[ForeRunner]

i will stand by my statements. those birds/dinosaurs in that link you provided are still extremely controversial. the archaeopterix has been proven false on numerous occasions. i'm waiting for a transitional fossil that was found as a single, complete fossil. random parts put together do not a fossil make. that's how lucy (australapithecus africanus) was made. and she was horribly wrong. call me a liar all you want, but proof is still lacking.

They aren't controversial. Only a very tiny minority disputes them, and they do so for obvious reasons *cough* creationists *cough*

 

[Mike Flynn]

Your answer is evolutionists make it up, pull it out of their butts, fudge it, lie, play pretend.....you pick the phrase. Unfortunately, they don't have a scientist with a evolution rubber stamp to endorse it, so they have no basis to refer to.

I'm sure thats just how the pharisees felt about Jesus teachings. I have quite a bit of theological basis for my assertions. On the other hand, we have seen vitually nil theological or scientific arguments from you. IOW, you falsely criticize evolutionists for their assertions...while providing absolutely no foundation for your own.

What good are unsubstantiated assertions? Of course, such things are the hallmark of biblical literalism.

Most general and open polls that I've run across reflect that the majority still don't contribute their surroundings to evolution's theory, but to God and young Earth creation.

By all means, please share your statistical data and sources with us. The poll's show that most Christians and Christian theologans support evolution and God. Very few support YEC. False claims only prove that you don't care about the truth.

But the evolutionists see this a challenge to continue an elaborate "assumption story". After all, where else can they receive government money to study a fictional story and continue their writing careers?

False. This is more accurate: biblical literalists have always seen evolution as a challenge to their elaborate 'assumption story' about the Bible. Worse, they are intent to impose all of their assumptions on the whole of Christianity. The entire endeavor not only speaks of narrow-mindedness, but throws scads of stumbling blocks into the community. The poisin fruit of YECism is all the evidence we need that it is not of God.

In addition, church goers and some church organizations fund the efforts of the likes of Humphrey's, Hovind, etc. Is this money well spent for a charitable organization?

Creation Story = Reality ; Assumption Story = Make your Own Rules

Genesis is intended as literal history = a fallible assumption =make your own rules

Thank you for showing us that Biblical literalists like to make their own rules on their baseless assumptions. Thats what YEC is...100% assumptions.

Science, on the other hand, is generated not on the basis of assumptions, but on the basis of data. And the data has clealy falsified all of the core assumptions of YECism.

 

[Mike Flynn]

or rather, supporting evidence.

Do a search on this forum on evolution, and real all of the posts regarding transitional fossils, etc. I have found that the supporting evidence is quite formidable.

YEC has virtually no supporting evidence at all. Not only that, the bulk of the data falsifies the claims of YEC wholesale. Is that supposed to be the theory we will use to supplant evolution and cosmology?

 

[PreacherJoe]

Evolution is a Theory. My high school Biology teacher told me a theory was an educated guess. When he said that I thought of the old cliche "your guess is as good as mine". Isn't it time public schools started teaching facts instead of conjectures such as Darwins theory. If they are going to teach on origins at least they could teach both sides or leave the subject alone instead of teaching lies.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Evolution is a Theory. My high school Biology teacher told me a theory was an educated guess.

In layman's terms, yes. In scientific terms, no. A theory, as used in science, is an explanation for a natural phenomenon that has been repeatedly confirmed via experimental testing and observation.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

i will stand by my statements.

Why am I not surprised...?

those birds/dinosaurs in that link you provided are still extremely controversial.

Controversial in what way?

the archaeopterix has been proven false on numerous occasions.

Can you support that empty claim? (Hint: you're wrong)

i'm waiting for a transitional fossil that was found as a single, complete fossil.

Archaeopteryx and plenty others.

random parts put together do not a fossil make. that's how lucy (australapithecus africanus) was made. and she was horribly wrong.

Lucy is not composed of "random parts put together." Can you support that empty claim either? Are you saying that the picture in one of my anthropological archaeology texts is some sort of fabrication?

call me a liar all you want, but proof is still lacking.

No, I don't necessarily think you are a liar (unless you continue to post claims that we have shown false over and over), but I do think you have not looked at the issue from a more objective perspective and are letting creationist websites do your thinking for you.

 

[Data]

call me a liar all you want, but proof is still lacking.

Your proof is certainly lacking. The only way to fix it is to provide some evidence to substantiate your claims.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Evolution is a Theory. My high school Biology teacher told me a theory was an educated guess.

Your high school biology teacher was wrong. A scientific theory is a logically derived conclusion that serves as an explanation for a set of all available data and incorporates those observational facts with established laws.

When he said that I thought of the old cliche "your guess is as good as mine". Isn't it time public schools started teaching facts instead of conjectures such as Darwins theory.

Then what exactly would we teach in science classes, then?

The existence and nature of atoms is just a theory.
Plate tectonics is just a theory.
Gravity is just a theory.

Et cetera. If you had read previous replies in this thread, you would have already seen this addressed.

A scientific theory is the pinnacle of the scientific method. By your twisted reasoning, we wouldn't be able to teach anything in science classes.

But theories are not mere guesswork, so your misconception of the scientific method is the root of your lack of understanding.

If they are going to teach on origins at least they could teach both sides or leave the subject alone instead of teaching lies.

In order to justifiably make that statement you must first prove that the theory of evolution is actually wrong and that people are teaching lies.

Furthermore, what other "side" is there to teach? There is no scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. It is the fundamental theory of the biological sciences and it is taught because it is the best explanation there is for all available data.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Hmm...

College students:
25% creationist, 54% TE

No high school diploma:
65% creationist, 23% TE

I think that we can learn something from this.

Indeed. However, some creationists would just argue that college students have been brainwashed by the mainstream Satanic conspiracy that pervades America. These people see lack of knowledge and rational thought as a virtue, not a weakness.

 

[Cantuar]

Evolution is a Theory.

Evolution is a fact. It's explained by the thoery of evolution.

My high school Biology teacher told me a theory was an educated guess.

Then your high-school biology teacher didn't know the basics of the scientific method. A theory is an explanation of a body of facts, and it's based on a great deal of evidence.

When he said that I thought of the old cliche "your guess is as good as mine".

That's probably exactly why he said it - in the hope that his pupils would realise the creationist subtext that he wasn't supposed to be mentioning overtly, the subtext being something like "facts are true, theories aren't facts, evolution is a theory, therefore evolution isn't a fact, therefore evolution isn't true." Just as a matter of interest, did he encourage his pupils to think that atomic theory and germ theory were just random guesses too? Or were his problems with theories sort of just restricted to evolution?

Isn't it time public schools started teaching facts instead of conjectures such as Darwins theory.

You really do need to get your terms straight. A conjecture is the nearest thing scientifically to this educated-guess business you were on about. A hypothesis is a more specific statement that can be tested by an experiment or observation and shown to be correct or incorrect. A theory is an explanation of a broad area of nature and is based on a great deal of experimental evidence that's usually obtained as a result of testing one or another hypothesis. Since science is about explanation and theories are the explanations, they're absolutely central to science and should most certainly be taught in science class. Theories have very little in common with conjectures in practical terms.

If they are going to teach on origins at least they could teach both sides or leave the subject alone instead of teaching lies.

Both sides? There's only one side with any scientific support, and that's what's being taught already. If they taught anything else, THAT'S when they'd be teaching lies.

 

[Parabler13]

Hum, I wonder if any Biblical literalists are going to say zero, since a supporter of evolutionary theory can't be a true Christian.

well, it's kind of ironic, but as far as i can tell a biblical literalist MUST believe in at least one sort of hyper-evolution.

it's very easy to determine that there is absolutely no way noah could have taken one of every species of animal on his ark. the argument YECs use to respond to this is that noah only took one of every representaive "kind" of animal (i.e., he just took two leopards, instead of two leopards, lions, tigers, cheetahs, etc.), thus only requiring a few thousand species to be on board. hence, to the only way to explain the rapid speciation and biological diversification we observe today is to posit that the last 5,000 years has been a time of remarkable biological mutation and specialization.

but back to the point of the post, it seems silly to even have to ask if one can choose not to believe in talking snakes and donkeys, global floods and the like and still be a christian. of course they can.

 

[Parabler13]

Evolution is a Theory. My high school Biology teacher told me a theory was an educated guess. When he said that I thought of the old cliche "your guess is as good as mine"

what would you do if your doctor told you that? "i have a theory why you're vomitting blood, but what do i know, your guess is as good as mine."

if you survey people who devote their lives to studying science, it's a very very tiny fraction who subscribe to theories other than old earth, evolution, big bang, etc. those who do almost invariably started out fundamentalist to begin with, and became scientists solely to try and put forth an educated sounding defense of their beliefs. now, either you've got a situation where there's a huge, vast, coordinated conspiracy AGAINST scientific truth as found in the bible, and the only rational minds are those holed up in their YEC bastions; or the majority of scientists are basically sincere in their quest for verifiable knowledge, and the tiny fraction of YEC "scientists" are ones with a prior agenda.

hmm...