SITE NOTICE | MORE..Android App Minor Update. Version 2.6.4 of our SermonAudio Android Edition fixes the app's notifications, as well as several other minor issues. All Android Church Apps are also updated. .. click for more info!
One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows
One-third of Americans reject the idea of evolution and Republicans have grown more skeptical about it, according to a poll released on Monday.
Sixty percent of Americans say that "humans and other living things have evolved over time," the telephone survey by the Pew Research Center's Religion and Public Life Project showed (Click here for the full survey).
But 33 percent reject the idea of evolution, saying that "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time," Pew said in a statement....
Science is bending, twisting, and changing thoughts, pre conceived ideas, and previous "done deal" theologies and "discoveries" all the time. I have very little confidence in science. Some things we can consider to be obvious and understood, while others, well, there is so much they claim to know but none of it is for certain.
Not all that long ago when the "simple" cell was discovered, the scientific communi, in unison, said that they had nothing left to discover. I will say that technology wise, it's really incredible how far we have come in such a short space of time.
Ifnt writes: This Ussherian "model" represents a simple faith in the Scriptures?
How is it any different from the faith you put in their evaluation of this evidence which is contingent upon the faulty assumption of uniformitarianism I mentioned in my first post? Also @ Will, I never meant to place creation scientists in bad light, only that some things just have to be taken by faith.
GsTexas wrote: It would seem to me that God simply spoke the word, and the light was there, as there was no reason to wait and twiddle his thumbs for millions of years, being the Creator and not subject to the laws of his own creation. Trying to scientificly explain the supernatural is problematic, and only leads to confusion. I find that simple faith in the Scriptures is good enough for me.
On February 22, 1987 astronomers were observing an ordinary star but the next day, they witnessed a catastrophic explosion resulting in a supernova. This extraordinary event occurred 168,000 light years away from Earth; 168,000 years ago.
Whereas, a presumed 6,000 year old Earth model was "established" by Bishop Ussher counting Bible geneologies and arriving at exactly 4004 B.C. as the moment God created the heavens and the Earth.
This Ussherian "model" represents a simple faith in the Scriptures?
although I thank God for creationist scientists and I think there is a place for them.... I think GS has a point in that God created the earth. period.
the issue that most of my evolutionist friends have is that they don't want to believe in God and will find any loophole and so focus their attention on these myths. because their mind is made up that they will go their own way.
it is a lot like trying to argue with a drunk about which form of drink they have is the best to go with ice cream, the issue at hand is that they are a sinner using every rationalizing process of the brain to prove away what is obvious when looking at the trees and the stars --- there is a Designer.
these movements have brought us communist statism, the state being the highest power, terrible biological experimentation, destruction of family life and personal property rights, all for the go at saying God is not there.
these ideas are not pretty.... "survival of the fittest" -- really? that is pure and utter chaos, that is communism. Christians need to put this stuff out. they tried to snuff out the millions of Christians in Russia. of course God can make light already in progress in space - and debating that with an evolution addict is not going to change their condition!
I've heard of that book Neil, but haven't gotten around to getting it. The explanation I attempted to proffer earlier was by Dr. John Hartnett. Like you, I agree most of what I've read goes over my head, but that doesn't stop me from reading and at least trying to have a slight understanding so as to be ready to give a defense for whoever asks. And Gs, I feel like you paint biblical scientists in a bad light. Personally, It's not that I don't trust scripture, it is that I do is the reason I explore and try to understand scientfic things. I don't see it as discrediting God or his power, but for me, the study is a crediting to God and magnifies his power. It is not that someone is subjecting God to the laws of the universe, but rather exploring the laws he created. Because I have simple faith in what He has said, I want to know more of him through his creation (and word of course). I'm in agreement with Newton's statement that science is thinking God'a thought after him, and it is also exemplary of faith in his Word.
It would seem to me that God simply spoke the word, and the light was there, as there was no reason to wait and twiddle his thumbs for millions of years, being the Creator and not subject to the laws of his own creation. Trying to scientificly explain the supernatural is problematic, and only leads to confusion. I find that simple faith in the Scriptures is good enough for me.
It turns out that measuring the distance to a star is an interesting problem! Astronomers have come up with two different techniques to estimate how far away any given star is.
The first technique uses triangulation (a.k.a. parallax). The Earth's orbit around the sun has a diameter of about 186 million miles (300 million kilometers). By looking at a star one day and then looking at it again 6 months later, an astronomer can see a difference in the viewing angle for the star. With a little trigonometry, the different angles yield a distance. This technique works for stars within about 400 light years of earth.
Well mike, you raise some questions I have too. I'm not an expert either, but I feel it's an important topic which is why in trying to learn. Trying to answer your questions, 1) poor argument, but no scientist argues they are not as far as we say. We can't prove they aren't closer by going there, and while majority isn't a good argument, it's about all I know. I'll try to think upon and answer the rest of your questions when I can get the chance, but for us lay men, those are good questions
Mike wrote: I'm not at all qualified in the matter, as my questions reveal: How do we know the stars are millions of light years away?
FYI, read "Starlight & Time" by Russell Humphreys, which has a creative explanation for this within a 6-Day Creation framework. However, I cannot understand nor critique his model as I don't understand Relativity in detail. In particular, tensor math is over my head, so it's of little use to me in debating people on cosmology.
So I simply resort, as you suggest, to pointing out weaknesses in science itself, such as hasty generalization from measurements: How do we know the value of c is really constant, especially since some researchers have shown that light can be slowed down (more precisely, delayed) in a medium?
One more point: An old universe doesn't logically imply Darwinism is true. When Carl Sagan types talk up stellar evolution, they are using an entirely different definition of "evolution" than old Charles meant, for stars aren't subject to Descent with Modification, as if they have genes or mutations. They are only subject to nuclear physics.
Will wrote: Cont... So the question remains, how do we see distant starlight that is millions of light years away? That is why I proposed (albeit poorly and briefly) one such creationist cosmogony below.
I'm not at all qualified in the matter, as my questions reveal: How do we know the stars are millions of light years away? If they are, then what we see isn't now what is, nor is what we think we're looking at where we're looking. I'm not sure we could draw any serious conclusions about the way things were from what we observe, since at best we'd be looking at what was, a long time ago. Kind of like watching a WW2 newsreel, and thinking the world must have been in black and white back then.
You're welcome UPS, and thanks for the ear. Many people might gloss over a question, but some honestly see distant starlight as a reason for an old earth, like the first comment on this topic. So, I like to have an answer for those asking, although it's not a great detailed answer when i say it, it's still a sensible and possible one. Some people might think we overstep our bounds in asking how God did it in natural terms, but I think not. Coming up with a physics explanation to demonstrate God'a power and instituting the laws only makes me marvel at his power more. After all, this attitude of wanting to know more about God's creation and His sustaining it is what lead to Newton, Kepler, and Galileo's famous discoveries. As Newton said, science is thinking God'a thoughts after him. Because this cosmogony could be wrong and is theoretical, I'm not dogmatic. But still, it's possible and consistent with both Genesis and what we observe in creation., nor does it limit the Almighty.
Thanks for your response. God is not limited by time or space. He can make a star billions of light years away and allow its light to appear to us immediately. It is US that are limited by time and space. So, to have this conundrum about the age of the universe and starlight is only one a natural man would have, not one that realizes by faith God created the heavens and the earth.
Ok, God created created a mature Adam and a mature tree of life. This we agree on. We also agree that he created the stars on day 4.
The part that I find potentially deceptive is only in regards to distant starlight. Consider: The question is how could adam see the light from stars, (and us) if stars were only created 2 days earlier and are often many millions of light years away. A common answer is that the light was created in transit, or already on its way. If God created starlight, in transit, then when we observe the lights and explosions from stars that are over 6500 light years away, then in a 6500 year universe, we are receiving false information. For instance, if we observe a star to explode at 20 million light years away, we can see that starlight, and that starlight and was carries information (neutrinos and time and other info.). It's not just light though, because that light and information is telling us that that star actually did explode, a historical actual event, but if the light was created already on its way, then we are receiving false information about that exploding star, which didn't explode or might not exist. Some will say that the speed of light has changed, but there is nothing to support that theory. So the question remains, how do we see
Will wrote: Well, UPS, it's primarily a semantic issue I think. ...
Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear
Mark 16:12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked , and went into the country.
I John 3:2 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
Since God created everything with the appearance of age, I am not sure how that is deceptive. If you could somehow see the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it would appear as a full grown tree the day it was created because that is the way God created it.
As to the stars, I would think the only ones that would think that it was deceptive is someone who did not believe in creation. I believe God created the stars on the 4th day and made their light reach all the way to the earth. I would not think He created them in such a way as to make them really exist before day 4 of creation. Maybe I am not understanding what you are saying.
science is building a bridge that holds its weight.
science is moral. building artificial wombs and then creating babies without a mom and a dad is undignified and inhumane as much as digging up old bacteria samples from past plagues for "experimentation".
science without morality is dead.
its things like fukushima running out the oceans.... that's science bereft of wisdom.
evolution is a religion.
it was created before genetics and when they were still teaching spontaneous generation (hence our food market today based off of Pasteur -- the war on microorganisms)
it is a deep seated religion just like the romans gave homage to their gods at the city square, whatever class or subject it is, they will give homage to that god.
its speculation and unproven and should be in the philosophy department.
Well, UPS, it's primarily a semantic issue I think. The phrase, "appearance of age" carries the connotation of deception, you can see why that would be problematic. Mature, to me, is a better description of how the item on earth were created. The issue isn't so much with Adam and the tress and what not on earth, because we can observe those here in time. We don't have to pretend false info with Adam like we do with starlight in transit. Thus, the phrase is primarily problematic (to me) with starlight, because that would indicate that the stars appear old but that they actually aren't, and the light we see is actually not conveying truthful information. I'm not a physics, astronomy, or cosmology expert, but I find no contradiction invoking cosmological relativity which I explained briefly as I could earlier. Succinctly put, that phrase is misleading in regards to starlight, but not Adam and the trees. But like I said, mature and appearance of age (built in lexicon, etc convey the same idea, so maybe I am being overly semantic, but the eliptical portion of the words "it appears" is that is isn't, and that just carries a deceptive connotation to me.. Perhaps that clears my position a bit.