Study: understanding ToE = acceptance

[KWCrazy]

That the scriptures were divinely inspired--just like most Christians.

Jesus said that man lives not by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. How would we know God's words if not for the Scriptures? Jesus confirmed that from the beginning God created man and woman. Jesus did not believe in the writings of Moses. He knew them to be true and even told us that if we didn't believe the writings of Moses that we wouldn't believe in Him either.

 

[Speedwell]

Jesus said that man lives not by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. How would we know God's words if not for the Scriptures? Jesus confirmed that from the beginning God created man and woman. Jesus did not believe in the writings of Moses. He knew them to be true and even told us that if we didn't believe the writings of Moses that we wouldn't believe in Him either.

Right. And your point is...?

Oh, wait. I'll bet it's that we also have to interpret scritpures in exactly the same way you do or we are denying the truth they contain.

 

[KWCrazy]

Again its not about being for or against any evidence its about the driving logic.

Logic tells us that there are varying degrees of difficulty but no varying degrees of impossibility. That which is impossible is equally impossible as any other impossibility. Things which are impossible are precluded by natural law. It is not possible for a a fish to swim to the moon on the water vapor in the air. It is not possible for a bowling ball to float to the clouds when dropped from a ten story building. It is impossible for an ax head to float, nor for the sun to stand still in the sky for a day, nor for a man to be raised from the dead after 3-4 days. These things are precluded by the laws which govern our universe. For any of these to happen, a force greater than natural law has to be introduced. We call this force God. God's will trumps natural law. For that reason the 333 miracles listed in the Bible are equally possible; not by natural law, but by God's will.

The origination of anything is impossible. To believe that the universe somehow came about on its on in the absence of supernatural intervention defies logic. To accept that created the universe and then lied about the process also defies logic and is contrary to the definition of God. God cannot lie because lying is against His will. So if God exists, then His word is truth; all of it; even those parts evolutionists would like us to reject.

if there were any truth to evolution, then Jesus would have told us. He told us to trust the writing of Moses. We know His position on the subject. Why, logically, would we say we serve Him and yet deny that which He taught?

 

[KWCrazy]

Oh, wait. I'll bet it's that we also have to interpret scritpures in exactly the same way you do or we are denying the truth they contain.

It's not what you interpret, it's what you flat out deny. You can't post any passage of Scripture to support your claim, which is directly falsified by the special creation of Adam and the subsequent fall of man through Adam's sin.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

if there were any truth to evolution, then Jesus would have told us. He told us to trust the writing of Moses. We know His position on the subject. Why, logically, would we say we serve Him and yet deny that which He taught?

Surely this logic could apply to anything that Jesus is not claimed to have told us about. If there was any truth to mobile phones, Jesus would have told us about them. If there was any truth to the germ theory of disease, Jesus would have told us about it. If there was any truth to Japan, Jesus would have told us about it.

 

[Larniavc]

Must be true as well for the initial logic to be correct.

It might be.

But we cannot simply assume because you say it must be true.

What you are doing is called ‘jumping to a conclusion’. It might make sense in your head but anyone with any education in the philosophy of science they will say that you need to test the hypothesis before you can reach a conclusion.

That stops us from reaching conclusions based on our ‘feels’ (as the young people say, betimes).

 

[Speedwell]

It's not what you interpret, it's what you flat out deny. You can't post any passage of Scripture to support your claim, which is directly falsified by the special creation of Adam and the subsequent fall of man through Adam's sin.

LOL! My "claim" was that your point would turn out to be that we have to interpret the scriptures exactly the same way you do or we are denying the truth they contain.

It looks to me as if you have supported that claim.

 

[Astrophile]

I think this a difficult study to have actually done. It would be very difficult to control bias. How does one determine if someone has a good understanding of Evolution? Apparently they just did a poll. Usually, if someone studies something, one at least broadly agrees with the content. Seldom do people continue to study a concept once they found something unacceptable or that they consider wrong.

But why do creationists consider evolution to be wrong and therefore give up studying it? It can hardly be because of the scientific evidence, since >99% of professional biologists, who have studied this evidence better than anybody else, accept evolution.

 

[Larniavc]

But why do creationists consider evolution to be wrong and therefore give up studying it? It can hardly be because of the scientific evidence, since >99% of professional biologists, who have studied this evidence better than anybody else, accept evolution.

It’s a conspiracy among the scientists to turn people away from Jesus.

Two of my closests friends are biologists and as soon as they got their PhDs (and I assume were inducted into the inner circle) I asked them about it but they denied everything.

Very suspicious.

 

[Astrophile]

lol I did look into, found a long list of creation scientists, posted the link on another site and was told that I was wrong because...(no reason given)

I have a question for you....when did truth depend on how many people believe or don't believe something? Does the same apply to religions? laws? professions? etc?

Do you see any contradiction between these two posts? First you said that you had found a long list of creation scientists, as if the fact that many scientists are creationists proves that creationism is true; now you are saying that the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the number of people of people who believe it.

Also, a lot of people do say that the fact that the Bible is the world's best-selling book, or that Christianity has the largest number of adherents of any religion, proves that that Christianity is true.

 

[Astrophile]

my original point was that people don't listen long enough or hard enough to discover who understands the theory and who doesn't, but I agree with what you said none the less.

Don't forget about those that understand it reasonably but because they don't believe in it, their objections are twisted and otherwise perverted till it appears that they don't understand because no one is listening to them only the reinvented version that can be argued against.

So far as I understand you, your original point is that there are people who understand evolution and reject it, but they are misrepresented so as to make it appear that they do not understand it. If there are such people, can you give some examples, and describe what they think in enough detail to demonstrate that they really do understand evolution.

The only people I know of who understand evolution and reject it are Kurt Wise and Todd Wood. Wise has said that scientifically speaking evolution is a very strong theory and he rejects it only because it disagrees with the Bible; in other words his motive for rejecting evolution is based on religion, not on the scientific evidence.

 

[KWCrazy]

Surely this logic could apply to anything that Jesus is not claimed to have told us about. If there was any truth to mobile phones, Jesus would have told us about them. If there was any truth to the germ theory of disease, Jesus would have told us about it. If there was any truth to Japan, Jesus would have told us about it.

Since none of these things directly contradict the Scriptures, I'll simply ignore your idiotic comparison.
Evolution contradicts the Scriptures. If there was any truth to it, Jesus would have explained the contradiction.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Since none of these things directly contradict the Scriptures, I'll simply ignore your idiotic comparison.
Evolution contradicts the Scriptures. If there was any truth to it, Jesus would have explained the contradiction.

So does Geology. So does Astronomy. So does History. But, Jesus did not explain those contradictions either.

 

[KWCrazy]

LOL! My "claim" was that your point would turn out to be that we have to interpret the scriptures exactly the same way you do or we are denying the truth they contain.

You cannot produce Scriptures to support your claim. Therefore my point that you reject the Scriptures is valid. Saying the creation didn't happen is NOT an interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Speedwell]

You cannot produce Scriptures to support your claim. Therefore my point that you reject the Scriptures is valid. Saying the creation didn't happen is NOT an interpretation of Scripture.

No, I reject the Genesis creation stories as 100% accurate literal history. I don't believe that the God who inspired them meant them to be taken as such in the way that you do.

 

[KWCrazy]

So does Geology. So does Astronomy. So does History. But, Jesus did not explain those contradictions either.

No, those fields of study do not conflict with the Bible. Some of the conclusions made by men do.

 

[KWCrazy]

No, I reject the Genesis creation stories as 100% accurate literal history. I don't believe that the God who inspired them meant them to be taken as such in the way that you do.

Fine. Show your work.
I want to see the passages you use to support your rejection of the foundational doctrine of creation.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

"Americans who understand how evolution works are more likely to accept it.

This flies in the face of creo's here who claim to understand ToE, but know it's false. IMO, this study is right on the money, and those here who claim to "understand" ToE, yet repeatedly demonstrate their ignorance, this study is for you."

Then by your own logic, stating: "Americans who understand how Creation works are more likely to accept it."

And again, lets change one word: This flies in the face of evo's here who claim to understand Creation, but know it's false. IMO, this study is right on the money, and those here who claim to "understand" Creation, yet repeatedly demonstrate their ignorance, this study is for you."

So if the evolutionist had a better understanding of the bible/God/Creation they would be more likely to accept it.

Firstly, your logic is faulty. A therefore B =/= C therefore D which is what you are claiming.

Secondly, the conclusion is not predicated on a logical construct but on empirical evidence. Trying to make it a simple logical construct is illogical.

 

[Speedwell]

Fine. Show your work.
I want to see the passages you use to support your rejection of the foundational doctrine of creation.

The foundational doctrine of creation as I understand it is that God is creator of all things, both visible and invisible, but I presume that is not what you mean.

Your question also seems to contain an assumption derived from the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, that the Bible can be fully understood without reference to any outside source--a doctrine which I do not subscribe to.

Even so, it would do me no good to post passages of scripture, because for the most part they would be the same ones which you would employ to prove your own case. The only difference would be that I do not assume that 100% accurate literal history is the only form of truth.

 

[Ancient of Days]

Firstly, your logic is faulty. A therefore B =/= C therefore D which is what you are claiming.

Secondly, the conclusion is not predicated on a logical construct but on empirical evidence. Trying to make it a simple logical construct is illogical.

I am not seeing the empirical evidence on that study. I also don't see how one study could be construed as definitive empirical evidence as I believe you are stating. I cannot even find the study. The links only go as far as a posted abstract. I asked for a link to the study but maybe my original post was over looked.