How many Evangelicals still believe in a young Earth? (hell, myths, priest)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OK I've done a bit of reading. I'll take the information you pointed me too under advisement. But other reading I have done still leads me to conclude that natural selection is not the mechanism of evolution, as I stated previously. I'm not sure that you understand my point.
Somewhat correct, NS alone would make the processes of evolution difficult to say the least. Even Darwin knew there had to be something else that would provide NS something on which to act. NS is merely the sorting out mechanism of evolution, but it is still a part of evolution. What Darwin did not know about was the genetic aspect - mutations in the genetic sequences of populations that get passed on to subsequent generations.
Quote:
One source I looked at (it may even have been yours) seems to say that "theory" explains laws of science or a set of facts. The example used was gravity, and there is Newtonian theory used to explain how gravity works and Einsteinian general relativity which explains it better.
Another (or maybe the same) source seems to say that scientific theories are used to make predictions.
So how does evolution theory make predictions, and how would we test if those predictions were to be accurate?
In September of 2005 the genetic code of the chimpanzee was published, therefore, we can compare our genome with theirs.
What do we find? One striking observation that was found is actually predicted by evolution and not predicted by creationism. This is by the way, one way to test for common descent. Evolution argues that we share a common ancestor with the great apes, the chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan. If that’s true, there should be genetic similarities.
Well, in fact there are. But there is something that is really interesting and has the potential if it were true to contradict evolution common ancestry. And that is, we have 2 fewer chromosomes than the other great apes. We have 46, they all have 48. That’s very interesting. Now what that actually mean? First of all, the 46 chromosome that we have, we got 23 from Mom and 23 from Dad, so we have 23 pairs. The other great apes have 24 pairs from each parent. So everyone posting in this thread, including you is missing a pair of chromosomes. So where did they go. Could it have gotten lost in our lineage? No, if a whole primate chromosome got lost, that would have been lethal. So that leaves only two possibilities.
If we really share a common ancestor, that ancestor had either 48 chromosomes or 46. Now, if it had 48 chromosomes, 24 pair, which is probably true, after all, 3 out of 4 have 48 chromosomes, what must have happened is that one pair of chromosomes must have gotten fused. So, we should be able to look at our genome and discover that one of our chromosomes resulted from the fusion of 2 chromosomes. We should be able to look around at our genome for it. And you know what? If we don’t find it, then evolution is wrong and we don’t share a common ancestor. This is one of those test for common ancestry, I wrote about earlier. After examining all 46 chromosomes and failing to find it would be a great test for creationism. So how would we find it?
Biologists know that chromosomes have these nifty little markers. They have markers called centromeres, which are DNA sequences that are used to separate them during mitoses. And we have cool little DNA sequences on the ends called telomeres to protect the chromosomes from degradation. What would happen if a pair of chromosomes got fused? Well, what would happen is that the fusion would put telomeres where they don’t belong – in the center of the chromosome, and the resulting fused chromosome should actually have two centromeres. One of them might become inactivated, but nonetheless, it should still be there. So we can scan our genome and you know, if we don’t find that chromosome in our genome, evolution is in trouble. Well, guess what, we found it, it’s chromosome No.2. Our chromosome No. 2 was formed by the fusion of two primate chromosomes. This chromosome is unique to our lineage, emerged as a result of a head to head fusion of two chromosomes that remain separate in other primates. The precise fusion site has been located at base number 114,455,823 to 114,455,838. That’s within 15 bases, along with multiple sub-telomere duplications, the telomeres that don’t belong, and lo and behold, the centromere that is inactivated corresponds to chimp chromosome No. 13. It’s there, it’s testable, it confirms this prediction of evolution.
Quote:
And show me one new species that is positively truly the result of natural selection.
By NS alone?
Quote:
Now you might convince me if you were to include genetic mutation as a component of evolution. You might even convince me that environmental duress might be a component.
It is. That isn't an obstacle and isn't excluded by anyone that I know of.
Quote:
But the small changes over long periods of time "theory" is not convincing enough to me.
Small changes driven by these mechanisms is sufficient in most cases, as exhibited in the fossil record.
The genome of the gorilla has just recently been sequenced, and showed some surprises....
The data also show that humans and gorillas differ in only 1.75% of their DNA, much less than previously believed. Humans and chimps, our closest living relatives, differ in only 1.37% of their genomes.
The absolute age the earth has been accurately determined to be 4.54 billion years by the use of radioisotope dating. Radioactive clocks are far from accurate and the methods used for dating are unreliable especially when attempting to determine the age of the earth. Decay rates can change and what works in an isolated lab environment may not be reproducible in the harsh reality of the world.
So potassium decays to argon at a different rate in a lab than, say, in a layer of rock in the wilds of Autralia? Feel free to post some cites -- from physicists, mind you -- asserting this.
The absolute age the earth has been accurately determined to be 4.54 billion years by the use of radioisotope dating. Radioactive clocks are far from accurate and the methods used for dating are unreliable especially when attempting to determine the age of the earth. Decay rates can change and what works in an isolated lab environment may not be reproducible in the harsh reality of the world. Interestingly, radiometric dating is somewhat accurate for current living things and the oldest of plants and animals have been dated at around 4,000 - 5000 years old - coinciding rather neatly with the time of the Flood.
Interestingly, carbon-dating is useless on living things because the C-14 in living things is continually replenished through respiration and ingestion. And the way carbon-dating works is that as C-14 degrades, the proportion of C-14 to stable C-12 and C-13 in organic matter decreases. Thus, carbon-dating (the sort of direct radiometric dating use on organic matter) can only tell us the time that has passed since organic matter ceased being a living thing.
Interestingly, you clearly have no clue how carbon-dating works.
Nobody has answered the op's question... How many Evangelicals still believe in a young Earth? so here ya go
When asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings, between 40-50% of adults in the United States say they share the beliefs of young Earth creationism, depending on the poll. The percentage of believers decreases as the level of education increases—only 22% of respondents with postgraduate degrees believed compared with 47% of those with a high school education or less. Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
These percentages are depressing.
This country needs to have way better science education in schools.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,060,466 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Nobody has answered the op's question... How many Evangelicals still believe in a young Earth? so here ya go
When asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings, between 40-50% of adults in the United States say they share the beliefs of young Earth creationism, depending on the poll. The percentage of believers decreases as the level of education increases—only 22% of respondents with postgraduate degrees believed compared with 47% of those with a high school education or less. Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That seems high...if half of Americans hold this view, the other half are ridiculing it? It seems many won't admit to it.
Thanks, btw. I don't want to play mod, but please keep to the topic. This is not a thread for debating young/old earth or creationism/evolution.
With everything, there is more than one perspective. Science means Knowledge. Science isn't wrong. Scientists conclusions are wrong all the time. The majority of Scientists thought a big ball dropped faster than a smaller one until Galileo proved them wrong. Just because the majority thinks something, it doesn't mean it's correct.
It's said the only barrier to truth is presuming we already have it.
Chimps and humans have a common ancestor.
By geographic isolation each group evolved differently. The isolation prevented crossbreeding and hence natural selection operated in a very different manner in each group.
The chimp has 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes.
Chromosomal analysis shows that human chromosome 2 is large and the result of fusion of two smaller chromosomes. That is why humans have 23 pairs and chimps have 24 pairs. However human chromosome 2 is really the result of fusion between two smaller chimp chromosomes.
See the chromosome analysis below between the large human chromosome No.2 and the smaller chimp chromosomes that fused:
Yes unfortunately, it appears to be on the decline. But that doesn't mean that the truth is based on popularity or on science. The fact is science is limited while God is unlimited.
IMO, it's not up to the Christian to prove anything about God because there is no way of proving that something (or God) exists outside the rule of physics..
Evolution can''t prove itself otherwise there would be no need to look beyond this planet.
Twin.spin, truth as science exposes it is never based on popularity, whereas your Bonze Age beliefs definitely ARE! By comparison, educated and logical people, many of whom, but not all, are scientists who constantly fight unilateral intransigence and utterly stupid commentary about how it all supposedly insta-poof happened a mere 6000 yrs ago, when ALL the facts point out this to not be the case.
So in other words, it was all done by "magic"! Well heck now: why didn't you just say so in the first place?
BTW, the stupid and patently absurd idea that since science is always UPDATING (not changing or denying) it's own discoveries in light of ever-better information or research processes, that it's THEREFOREall wrong, is decidedly ignorant, and purposefully so.
All just to "prove" to other similarly thinking & bleating disciples of ignorance and scientific illiteracy that your imaginary wooden-icon god, whose word is for sure sadly frozen in the Bronze Age, is THEREFORE always right.
Cow manure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mind over Chatter
As what we know from science changes, the word of God remains the same. The truth about where we came from and how we got here remains steadfast. I will remain with it.
You never said you'd changed your mind, MoC! Well good! Glad to see some of what I've been saying has finally sunk in!
(Seriously though, to outright and totally deny all the well-supported evidence and then haughtily claim it's all wrong? Now that is a fine demo of insolvable intransigence!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hackwrench
Except the word translated Day is better translated "era". Also Gen 1:1 is more properly translated "In the beginning of God's creation of heaven and earth, the Earth with without form and void", since everywhere else in the Bible that word is translated "In the beginning of" (so and so's reign).
Trouble is, hw, you get to adjust the timeline and evidence for each supposed Genesis day, for each event, and each period of time. But then you also d(w)on't explain why on earth God would have to do this, taking more time to do a job every one of you state he can do with a blink and wave of his Almighty Hand. And then, magically and for no good reason, he reverted time back into what we see today? WHY again? WHYWHYWHY?
Which is it? Did it take him many long "eras", or just a few days? And WHY did he have to doddle along? Was he having trouble with some of the genetics, since we know that it wasn't understood at all, least of all by our insightful but much-maligned and hated Doctor Darwin until many millennia after that godly event. Plus, we're all told by you Sci-Illit yutzzos that Darwin's stuff is all just a pipe-dream from an addled and drunken mind (all made up, btw...) and thus "obviously wrong!".
So again, which is it? Are we the result of our ever-changing DNA or not? And why then did your god change "back" to Coordinated Universal Time (Greenwich Mean Time)???
What, just to keep us evolvin' hominids guessing?[b] Or is it simply an apologist's stubborn ploy to make the obviously faulty evidence you have fit with what we now so clearly find in the real and observable world?
With everything, there is more than one perspective. Science means Knowledge. Science isn't wrong. Scientists conclusions are wrong all the time. The majority of Scientists thought a big ball dropped faster than a smaller one until Galileo proved them wrong. Just because the majority thinks something, it doesn't mean it's correct.
It's said the only barrier to truth is presuming we already have it.
Answer to such ignorance: Only religion, and in particular Christianity, claims to be all-knowing and unchangeable (see those statements directly above!).
Science NEVER makes such outrageous claims as to know it all, silly. And by definition, science is ALWAYS open to alternate solutions and inquiries. Why have you never taken on even the simplest of science experiments to verify any of it yourself?
Too afraid you'll see how science and it's irrefutable logic and methodology works? That'll be my bet.
In truth, scientists like me are only too happy to fully and constantly accept that WE DON'T KNOW IT ALL, AND NEVER WILL! (NOW, REPEAT THAT PHRASE A FEW TIMES SO YOU WON'T MAKE THIS OUTRAGEOUSLY IGNORANT STATEMENT EVER AGAIN, OK??)
Rather, we are always open to change, to corrections ,and to the obvious improvements that constant open curiosity and better research methods bring. We are not stubborn and intransigent like you people are so obviously proud to be!
Otherwise, just so I understand your statement above, are you saying all the following discoveries, inventions and understandings are utter and demonstrable falsehoods brought to you by the Evil™ science regime?
BTW, Gallileo's thoughts were at the dawn of modern scientific thinking. We've moved on from then, in case you have not noticed. As well, if science's discoveries are used for ill-will, whose fault is that? The discoverer of some tiny new principle of physics (like the laser, for which it's inventor thought there was literally no perceivable use? Hmmm. So lasers are EVIL™, I tell you! EVIL™!!!) or of the selfish minds of man? God knows the church has used it's substantial power over frightened men for millennia, much of it to no good...
All of whatever science discovers is subject to endless improvements in understanding. And therfore new or modified, usually more accurate, conclusions. Is that your only excuse for not wanting to believe what science has so obviously brought to you?
How transparently Convenient and Unthinking! but let's list your impossibilites, shall we?
Lasers & Masers
Mach numbers
Toaster ovens
Radiant Heat
digital communications/cel phones?
antibiotics
anti-virals
Aircraft flight, incl. into space with lunar & Mars landers.
laser & inkjet printers
fuel injection, turbochargers and radial tires
air bags
modern medical response systems, incl. digital cardiac monitors and defibrillators
flat screen HD TV
satellite systems
ICBMs
controlled and uncontrolled nuclear fusion, fission and power plants
Higgs boson particles
truth..
and so on ad infinitum.
Well then please... do go for it; expose your hypocrisy and intransigence. It's all quite amusing and illustrative! Really! It is!
As for your video, I have a few minutes to waste on Kent, again... I will watch this one, since Kent is a true idiot in his various pronouncements ("The banana man!" for instance...). Then I'll point-form them in just a bit for you!
Back in a bit! (LoooogoutKent! YouDah No-Ledge Man FurShur!!)
That seems high...if half of Americans hold this view, the other half are ridiculing it? It seems many won't admit to it.
Thanks, btw. I don't want to play mod, but please keep to the topic. This is not a thread for debating young/old earth or creationism/evolution.
What? Answering the question the topic asks is somehow off topic?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well good! 
Glad to see some of what I've been saying has finally sunk in! 
