home
RSS
Survey: U.S. Protestant pastors reject evolution, split on Earth's age
January 10th, 2012
04:18 PM ET

Survey: U.S. Protestant pastors reject evolution, split on Earth's age

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor

America’s Protestant pastors overwhelmingly reject the theory of evolution and are evenly split on whether the earth is 6,000 years old, according to a survey released Monday by the Southern Baptist Convention.

When asked if “God used evolution to create people," 73% of pastors disagreed - 64% said they strongly disagreed - compared to 12% who said they agree.

Asked whether the earth is approximately 6,000 years old, 46% agreed, compared to 43% who disagreed.

A movement called Young Earth creationism promotes the 6,000-year-old figure, arguing that it is rooted in the Bible. Scientists say the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

The Southern Baptist Convention survey, which queried 1,000 American Protestant pastors, also found that 74% believe the biblical Adam and Eve were literal people.

“Recently discussions have pointed to doubts about a literal Adam and Eve, the age of the earth and other origin issues," said Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay Research, a division of the Southern Baptist Convention, in a report on LifeWay’s site. “But Protestant pastors are overwhelmingly Creationists and believe in a literal Adam and Eve.”

The phone survey was conducted in May 2011, sampling ministers from randomly selected Protestant churches. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percent, LifeWay said.

A 2010 Gallup poll found that 40% of Americans believe God created humans in their present form, versus 54% who said humans developed over millions of years.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Christianity • Science

« Previous entry
soundoff (6,504 Responses)
  1. nown

    test2

    February 20, 2012 at 5:17 pm |
  2. PumpNDump

    Lets face it. These pastors are imbeciles and uneducated.

    February 20, 2012 at 10:51 am |
  3. Ladybug

    You are afraid of a God who allegedly has created mankind in His (!) image but then condemns mankind for using their brains.

    There. Easier for you to swallow now?

    February 20, 2012 at 12:06 am |
    • Mike

      @ Ladybug..."At the end of this century it will be nothing more than a hobby for the nutters."

      At the end of this century, the globalists will have received the very thing that they are attempting to presently orchestrate...a one world order. But rather than the people's choice, the one that the bible refers to as the antichrist, Jesus Christ will be ruling and most of the human race will have destroyed itself long before. But under his leadership things will begin anew, and the world will become that which people have always wanted it to be...a world of peace and prosperity. But not all will be pleased with the rule of Christ and so plans will be made to rebel one final time and to overthrow his rule. For far in the future, they will have forgotten the devastation that the human race had brought upon itself and once again will believe in their own prideful minds...that they know what is best......Rather like today.

      February 20, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
  4. Mirosal

    That would be Apollo and his sun chariot.

    February 19, 2012 at 8:22 am |
  5. Kayla

    Who put the sun in the sky in the morning?

    February 19, 2012 at 8:19 am |
    • MissTeeny

      Nobody puts the sun in the sky in the morning. The sun doesn't move, the earth spins around, leaving half of the earth facing the sun, and the other half in darkness. Go back to first grade science class.

      February 19, 2012 at 4:58 pm |
    • Miss Peach

      This is why young people are leaving the church in droves.
      Grow a brain Kayla.

      February 19, 2012 at 9:38 pm |
  6. Usman Akhtar

    Hi,

    Watch these videos to see who your Lord, Your Savior, is truly and who take Jesus back after his Cruisifiction. You are the people who enslaved themselves in the slavery of the people who cruisify Jesus. I Challenge you to deny these videos and the massage in these videos. Paradise, who’s Paradise? Think about your kids and what they believe in. Listen to these creatures very carefully. These creatures are saying the name of their and every bodies Creator. May be GOD wants to give you a chance? I hope you won't call these creatures terrorist. Good Luck.

    Watch these videos.

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiX5AN1XiZg&w=640&h=390]

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFcrCiaqfEg&w=640&h=390]

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okazbOSMKSQ&w=640&h=390]

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkXtzxKbthg&w=640&h=390]

    Watch where this Red car is going.
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpex5x6YlL4&w=640&h=390]

    Usman Akhtar

    February 18, 2012 at 8:24 pm |
    • Ladybug

      All religions are cults.
      All religions are man made.
      At the end of this century it will be nothing more than a hobby for the nutters.

      February 19, 2012 at 9:41 pm |
    • Mike

      Thank you for your concern Usman. I can appreciate that you believe all those animals were saying the name of Allah. But I do not think he is someone that I could ever follow, because other than the prophet Mohammed, Allah never speaks to anyone, but Jesus does. Jesus has spoken to me and many others and while I do not think you will ever hear animals speak his name, if you were to follow him, you would hear him speak. And that my friend, is far better.

      February 20, 2012 at 3:47 pm |
  7. AthensGuy

    why should we care about their opinion? hey still think as if it was 1399!

    February 17, 2012 at 10:37 pm |
  8. Greyman

    Someone please explain to me why, when it comes to evolution, I shouldn't trust the conclusions of biochemists, geneticists and paleontologists, but instead listen to folks that quote a book that claims blood sacrifice of doves cures leprosy and bats are classified as birds?

    February 17, 2012 at 7:48 pm |
    • Kent Hovid

      Because they are all apart of the Illuminati and are controlled by Satan. Even the christian ones, although I'm not sure how that part works.

      February 17, 2012 at 7:58 pm |
    • Chad

      The atheist answer algorithm:

      1. Atheist “science isn't discarding an external force, there is just is no evidence of an external force”

      2. Creationist “well, what about the origin of the universe, the fact that the universe obeys laws, the origins of life on this earth, the fact that the largest “gaps” in the fossil record correspond exactly with the organisms identified in the bible as being created by God, namely fish, birds, land animals and humans ”

      3. Atheist “We don’t know how to explain those things. The supernatural is by definition beyond nature and therefore beyond investigation by science. As utterly improbable as it is, our only answer at this point is to say it’s possible that all of those things just popped out of nothing via random combination of molecules”

      4. Creationist “Well, if you don’t have an answer for these fundamental events to begin with, and your only explanation is to posit the possibility of the utterly improbable time and time again, by what basis are you discarding the possibility of a force external to our universe?”

      5. Atheist: “Please go to step #1

      February 17, 2012 at 9:37 pm |
    • Chad

      @Greyman: Someone please explain to me why, when it comes to evolution, I shouldn't trust the conclusions of biochemists, geneticists and paleontologists

      => Ha! Because phyletic gradualism is DEAD. It's impossible!!! Gould said so!! Gould sava-ged the scientists....sava-ged them!! I read it!! Pu-pu-punctuated equilibrium! HA!! Proof it is impossible without supernatural intervention. Impossible!!! Ah! Sava-ged them! Gould said so! Punctuated equilibrium it proves Jesus, you idiot! Ha! Pu-punctu....Gould said so! Read the article!!! He sava-ged all the scientists!! Stasis stasis stasis jesus jesus jesus. Read the article!!
      Puuuuuuuunctuuuuuuaaaaateeed Eeeeeeeeeeeequuuuuuuuilibrrrrrrriuuuuuuuummmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!

      February 17, 2012 at 11:22 pm |
  9. wayne

    Disputing the weary canard that evolution is a religion, and therefore somehow equal to creationism.

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzmbnxtnMB4&w=640&h=390]

    February 17, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
    • Chad

      I stopped watching when the big flashing “…by unanemous[sic] vote!” banner came on..

      February 17, 2012 at 10:02 pm |
    • momoya

      Good move, Chad. It would have been too much for you too handle.

      February 20, 2012 at 10:26 am |
  10. wayne

    @Cbinal

    You said:

    "Wayne You busted me man. I have long admitted that my beliefs are based on Faith in the Bible that it is right and that God is the author. I have no problem admitting my belief is faith in what I read and not what "science" says. But, you guys do have a problem. None of you want to admit that your belief in Evolution is that your faith is in scientist who tell you that's right. Therefore your religion is Evolution and Darwin is your Messiah."

    Let me address this nonsense.

    So first you admit that you believe what the bible says and you are unwilling to change your position no matter what? I'm glad you never claimed to be open minded.

    "None of you want to admit that your belief in Evolution is that your faith is in scientist who tell you that's right. Therefore your religion is Evolution and Darwin is your Messiah."

    I don't have any faith in evolution. I accept it as the best possible explanation of the diversity of life on earth. We now have had 74 pages here and not once have you given any evidence indicating miraculous creation as described in the bible. I'm not talking about quoting bible verses either. I'm talking about explaining in detail how God created deer, ducks, cats, dogs, bears ect fully formed in their current states from nothing, all at once. Imagine a field, then imagine all those animals i described above appearing instantly out of nowhere fully grown and adapted to their environments all at one time. No matter how silly it sounds, you idiots believed it happened. If you want to change my mind show evidence of such an event.

    Let me break it down for you

    1. God
    2. ????
    3. Life on earth

    I don't want to hear how science can't explain it. I want you to tell me in detail HOW God did it. Explain your side. Oh and you can't invoke magic. Which is defined as:

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/magic

    the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b : magic rites or incantations

    an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source b : something that seems to cast a spell : enchantment

    the art of producing illusions by sleight of hand

    Good luck stupid.

    I also don't give a damn about Charles Darwin. Why do you idiots think just because you worship dead people that we have to as well? Nobody believes Darwin is going to fly back to earth one day and take away the people that believe in the origin of species. No dead people got out of their graves ( lol you idiots believe this) when he died. And he didn't comeback tho life after a few days and fly away in outer space somewhere. Quit being a dishonest liar for your dead Jesus.

    Evolution is not a religion either mainly because:

    "It (evolution) is the branch of biology which explains biodiversity. As such it doesn’t permit supernatural explanations, has no doctrines, nor dogma, nor fables with morals; it has no rituals, traditions or holidays, nor either leaders or defenders of the faith because it doesn’t allow faith. It holds nothing sacred, there’s no place of worship, no enchantments, no clergy, no fashion of garb, and it neither promotes nor discourages belief in gods or souls, and says nothing about how we should live or what happens after we die. Evolution is therefore NOT a religion."

    -Aronra

    February 17, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
    • Mike

      @ Wayne... "If you want to change my mind show evidence of such an event." That's not what Chrisitians are here for. Christ said that his followers hear his voice and he was not deluded, nor was he lying. Christians are in this world to testify of the fact that Jesus Christ is alive and to reach those who desire to hear him but don't know how. We are not here to debate and to attempt to change the minds of those who do not have that desire. You obviously do not, but the same cannot be said for many of those who may be reading these comments.

      February 18, 2012 at 3:10 am |
    • wayne

      "That's not what Chrisitians are here for. Christ said that his followers hear his voice and he was not deluded, nor was he lying. "

      You hear his voice and you guys are still this stupid?

      "Christians are in this world to testify of the fact that Jesus Christ is alive and to reach those who desire to hear him but don't know how."

      I know how. Read a book (bible) and use your imagination to pretend Jesus is your friend. Kids plays this game all the time.

      "We are not here to debate and to attempt to change the minds of those who do not have that desire."

      Well that's a good thing, because you would fail miserably.

      "You obviously do not, but the same cannot be said for many of those who may be reading these comments."

      You are correct. I have no interest in having a relationship with someone i can only know through a translated book.

      February 18, 2012 at 10:06 am |
  11. False Dichotomy

    So, in closing: KMAG YOYO
    (look it up)

    February 17, 2012 at 3:39 pm |
  12. False Dichotomy

    For the science-deniers: Putting your fingers in your ears and squeezing your eyes shut and saying "is not, is not, is not!" does nothing good for anyone. If the scientific method were not reliable and effective, we couldn't be communicating on computers via satellite. You couldn't have microwaved your food or driven your car to work today. There is not a different science for satellites than there is for everything else. Your flu vaccine comes from the same body of science as evolutionary biology.

    Why fight so hard to rationalize and protect ignorance? It's an ignoble and futile battle. One can't be helped if they stubbornly refuse to understand. Despite some valiant attempts, there is not time nor room on this webpage for anyone to provide you with a proper science education. It's vast and complex. Likely, you wouldn't accept it anyway because you would be too focused on how to shield yourself against it. You should be angry that you didn't get a good education in science and critical thinking in the first place, but you can only blame yourself and others like you who fight so hard to keep our schools and our culture dumbed down.

    February 17, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
    • cbinal

      @False Again you've gone way too far. I design printed circuit boards that go into satellites and computers. I've owned my own hotrod shop where we built engines and chassis components using a CNC machine. That is a totally different science that has nothing to do with origins. And if you think that science is "consistant" with the numbers your wrong, it changes all the time.

      February 17, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      a hammer still works whether you believe that it's made of wood and iron or not. That's the thing about science, it doesn't require you to believe in it for it to be true.

      February 17, 2012 at 3:34 pm |
    • cbinal

      But, point being, that hammer was created by an intelligent designer and never got better. Every design I have done was an intelligent design, using parts that were created for that purpose. They didn't evolve, we created new and better designs using the same type materials. And all degrade, they are never better than designed to be.

      February 17, 2012 at 3:51 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @cbinal,
      You are twisting words here. I think, @False Dichotomy was saying the different measurements of age were consistent with each other. As new data/evidence comes in, science will adjust if needed.
      Tools, hammers, etc. don't reproduce, you cannot compare a man-made tool with Evolution because tools don't reproduce.

      February 17, 2012 at 4:06 pm |
    • cbinal

      @Non – yea a little bit. This also stems from the other day where (I think it was False) said something about evolution being the basis for everything and he listed metalwork, electronics, etc. Just a jab. You guys are keeping this post alive.

      February 17, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      @cbinal – wasn't me. There's an argument to be made that artifacts (e.g. stone tools, metal, electronics) can be understood as a result of cultural transmission (as opposed to genetic transmission) and thus changes in technology can be understood as a product of evolution. In that same argument technology is seen as the extended human phenotype (in other words, tools are to people as birdsnests are to birds). But that's a complicated argument, and probably works best as a metaphor.

      February 17, 2012 at 4:35 pm |
    • Chad

      @False Dichotomy For the science-deniers: Putting your fingers in your ears and squeezing your eyes shut and saying "is not, is not, is not!" does nothing good for anyone. If the scientific method were not reliable and effective, we couldn't be communicating on computers via satellite. You couldn't have microwaved your food or driven your car to work today. There is not a different science for satellites than there is for everything else. Blah-blah-blah….

      @Chad “Creationists believe in science! really? yes! God created the world, why not examine it and try to better understand it?
      Atheists attempt to take a refusal to partake in the atheist answer algorithm as a rejection of the entire discipline.. Which is of course nonsense.

      When it comes to the things that scientists cant explain (how life originated, how the universe originated, why the universe obeys laws), atheist scientists want Christians to join with them in repeating the atheist answer algorithm, and we refuse to.
      As a result, they try time and again to portray Creationists as being guilty of willful ignorance, however, if you look closely at the atheist answer algorithm, you'll see atheists are the ones being willfully ignorant.

      The atheist answer algorithm:
      1. Atheist “science isn't discarding an external force, there is just is no evidence of an external force”

      2. Creationist “well, what about the origin of the universe, the fact that the universe obeys laws, the origins of life on this earth, the fact that the largest “gaps” in the fossil record correspond exactly with the organisms identified in the bible as being created by God, namely fish, birds, land animals and humans ”

      3. Atheist “We don’t know how to explain those things. The supernatural is by definition beyond nature and therefore beyond investigation by science. As utterly improbable as it is, our only answer at this point is to say it’s possible that all of those things just popped out of nothing via random combination of molecules”

      4. Creationist “Well, if you don’t have an answer for these fundamental events to begin with, and your only explanation is to posit the possibility of the utterly improbable time and time again, by what basis are you discarding the possibility of a force external to our universe?”

      5. Atheist: “Please go to step #1

      February 18, 2012 at 10:08 pm |
  13. cbinal

    @False No I was being a little sarcastic there. I believe that alot of methods are great. I just don't believe in the constancy of those methods or the basis for the formulated numbers. For example, Carbon dating (if I'm remembering this right) assumes that Carbon12 and Carbon14 levels are the same at the death of the animal and the decay of 14 to 12 basically has a measureable constant. It's always been interesting to me that that "half-life" is approx 5700 years (that plus about 1600 years before the flood gives you about how old I think the earth really is). And then all of the sudden we start multiplying that by 65,000 years? Come on.

    February 17, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
    • cbinal

      Sorry meant to go under Adams post.

      February 17, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
    • Wayne

      You need to admit the truth. You don't accept anything science says if it contridicts your favorite fables. That is the main issue here. Be honest and just admit it.

      February 17, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
    • cbinal

      Does Carbon Dating work on anything submerged in salt water?

      February 17, 2012 at 3:12 pm |
    • cbinal

      @Wayne You busted me man. I have long admitted that my beliefs are based on Faith in the Bible that it is right and that God is the author. I have no problem admitting my belief is faith in what I read and not what "science" says. But, you guys do have a problem. None of you want to admit that your belief in Evolution is that your faith is in scientist who tell you that's right. Therefore your religion is Evolution and Darwin is your Messiah.

      February 17, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      You have the first part kind of right. Nitrogen 14 is converted to Carbon14 in the upper atmosphere due to solar radiation. It is taken up by plant through CO2 at a rate that is in equilibrium with the atmosphere. Originally it was believed that C14 was constant, but it was found to vary slightly through time due to sunspot activity. Instead of ignoring this (as young earthers often accuse), radiocarbon dates are calibrated against tree rings, lake varves, coral strata, etc. to account for variation. Ironically, it means that radiocarbon dates increasingly underestimate the age of a sample (a C14 date of 10,000 years old reflects almost 12,000 calendar years). If it didn't work, it would mean that everything – C14, tree rings, lake varves, coral strata, paleomagnetism, thermoluminescence, etc, etc. – EVERYthing just happens to give the same results...but be wrong.

      So, yes. C14 decays back to N14 with a half-life of 5730 years, and the amount of time that has passed is estimated by measuring the proportion of C14 that remains in the sample. You can do this back to about 65,000 years ago before the remaining C14 is too small to measure (nothing is multiplied by 65,000). The results are given as a statistical probability that lets you know how reliable the date is (it primarily reflects the quality of the sample).

      As I stated before, all dating methods are calibrated against independent measures to test their accuracy (for example, C14 dates are calibrated with tree ring records that go back at least 12,000 years, beyond that they are calibrated with other annular phenomena). This stuff isn't just made up, and isn't just assumed to be true – it is tested and refined and re-evaluated constantly. It's literally true that if C14 didn't work, neither would your microwave or the atomic bomb. They are all based on the same understanding of atomic theory.

      And as far as a 6,000 year old earth goes, there are literally tree ring sequences that go back twice as far as that (and tree rings aren't even estimates).

      February 17, 2012 at 3:23 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      Does Carbon Dating work on anything submerged in salt water?

      Yes, salinity is not an issue. Also samples go through a series of pretreatments to remove any contaminants that might affect the dating. Again, this is not tricks – it's the same physics and chemistry that goes into everything around us, from plastic toys to x-ray machines.

      February 17, 2012 at 3:32 pm |
    • cbinal

      @False Thanks for the info. Only problem again, nobodies numbers match. Do searches on everything you just said, some say the oldest tree rings can only go back 9,000 years, some say 19,000 years, you say 12,000. Not to mention you're talking about counting rings, extracting carbon amounts from rings, assuming carbon levels are constant – and they figured this all out since the 1940s. Not even 100 years worth of actual data – not to mention alot believe those numbers are total different after nuclear explosions, volcanic activity, etc.

      February 17, 2012 at 3:45 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @cbinal,
      Dendrochronology is pretty specific to type of tree and region, so that may be why you are seeing different numbers. Where did you see those numbers, maybe it reference species and location.

      February 17, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @cbinal,
      I think you are correct about the atomic bombs, radiocarbon dating won't work on things younger than the 1950s, I think, because of nuclear testing has artificially changed the C14 levels in the atmosphere. Fortunately though, things dead before 1950 +/- aren't affected.

      February 17, 2012 at 4:29 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      Okay, one more and then I'm really outtahere.

      In Brief:
      nobodies numbers match. Do searches on everything you just said, some say the oldest tree rings can only go back 9,000 years, some say 19,000 years, you say 12,000.
      *I said at least 12,000 – that's in the western United States. There are different records for different regions because climate varies regionally.

      Not to mention you're talking about counting rings, extracting carbon amounts from rings,
      * no, dating samples are not necessarily from wood, but the fact that carbon dates that are from tree rings agree with the ages shown by the tree rings themselves is indeed strong independent confirmation of the accuracy of C14 dating.

      assuming carbon levels are constant
      * I just tried to explain that they are not assumed to be constant, and that's why dates are calibrated

      and they figured this all out since the 1940s. Not even 100 years worth of actual data – not to mention alot believe those numbers are total different after nuclear explosions, volcanic activity, etc.
      * if you look closer, you will see that the people who are making those arguments are creationists trying to disprove carbon dating.

      I would encourage you to try to look at things with an open mind toward learning about them, rather than looking for excuses to dismiss them.
      Take care and have a great weekend.

      February 17, 2012 at 4:29 pm |
  14. Wayne

    @cbinal

    "I really don't need the instructor telling me how stupid I am for being a Christian at the end of ever sentence."

    You are not stupid for being a chrisitan, you are stupid for being a creationist.

    February 17, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
    • cbinal

      Thanks Wayne – I feel better already. Haha

      February 17, 2012 at 2:58 pm |
  15. Jesus>>Darwin

    The way that God designed the Universe was indeed brilliant. He made it finite at any given point in time, but not infinite. It's capacity to expand is not infinite either. Eventually it will either spring back to the origin or be ripped apart.

    He made our space appear to exist in three dimensions, but it's actually four dimensions! So, not only is the universe finite, but if you go to the defined outer limit (not the "edge", there is no "edge" to the universe) within the 4D space, you essentially loop back around to the starting point! Therefore, as humans, we are bound to this 4D universe. Our Spirits are not bound to this place though.

    February 17, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • Wayne

      The universe is finite therefore Jesus did it? 0_o

      February 17, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
    • Jesus>>Darwin

      It dispels the myth that the universe has always existed, or infinite.

      February 17, 2012 at 8:24 pm |
    • AGuest9

      At least we know that Charles Darwin actually existed.

      February 17, 2012 at 9:48 pm |
    • Jesus>>Darwin

      Yes, Darwin existed and had false ideas. Jesus existed and had true ideas.

      February 18, 2012 at 12:16 am |
  16. Jesus>>Darwin

    @WASP

    The universe is finite in both age and size. It is expanding, but that does not mean it's infinite. This is not a bluff, you are just too stupid to recognize the truth.

    February 17, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • Jesus>>Darwin

      At any given point in time, it has a finite age and size. This is due to rate of change (calculus), but of course you would not know that either.

      February 17, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • WASP

      @JD: there you go again making statements with no facts to back it up other than your book written by man. insults, really? that is what a weak and scared mind results to when challenged with knowledge they don't understand or chose not to understand. didn't you say something before about S.I.N. i believe insult was one of the tactics you blamed atheists for? soooooooo that would make you a hypocrit......but thanks for proving me correct that you have nothing intelligent to back up your stance. i have the works of the whole scienctific community i can tap for information, you have an archeic belief structure that has had to change and re-word itself to keep up with he changing world, even then it fails to explain anything when put under a microscope. no bible, means no god, which means no sin, which means no after life, which means you won't get punished for judging other people as being lower than you by calling them stupid. ignorance JD is a choice.

      February 17, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
    • Jesus>>Darwin

      The statement that the universe is finite at any given point in time and expanding is scientific fact.

      February 17, 2012 at 4:54 pm |
  17. Wayne

    “Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox. See now, his strength is in his hips,
    And his power is in his stomach muscles. He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit. His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron. He is the first of the ways of God; Only He who made him can bring near His sword." Job 40:15-19

    Here is the NJK version

    15Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

    16Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

    17He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

    18His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

    19He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

    Dinosaurs didn't have navels, as they were egg layers. And their "loins" were inside their bodies. The animal being described here is a mammal. Once that was realized of course the other bible versions made changes. Who says religon doesn't evolve?

    February 17, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
    • cbinal

      Quit looking at translations and look at the actual meaning of the words. The word there in the Hebrew is "shariyr" which means muscles.

      February 17, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
    • Wayne

      Are you talking about navel? Muscle=navel in hebrew?

      February 17, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
    • cbinal

      http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8306&t=KJV

      February 17, 2012 at 3:10 pm |
  18. Wayne

    “Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox. See now, his strength is in his hips,
    And his power is in his stomach muscles. He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit. His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron. He is the first of the ways of God; Only He who made him can bring near His sword." Job 40:15-19

    Here is the NJK version

    15Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

    16Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

    17He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

    18His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

    19He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

    Dinosaurs don't (and still don't) have navels, as they were (and still are) egg layers. Once that was realized of course the other bible versions made changes, because of course it can't be a dinosaur with a navel!!!

    February 17, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
  19. WASP

    has anyone thought that maybe we created ourselves? just a thought i'm throwing out there. check out this link about schrodinger's cat. the information is too much to post on here but if you would like a trippy way to view human exsitance check it out.

    http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi347.htm

    February 17, 2012 at 11:58 am |
    • Wayne

      @Cbinal, that's been debunked a long time ago.

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mtsthelens.html

      February 17, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
    • Nonimus

      In other words, "What the bleep do we know?" Nothing, at least nothing from the producers of such junk pseudoscience.

      February 17, 2012 at 3:33 pm |
  20. Adam

    "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." Isaiah 40:22

    A circle clearly represents a spherical object. If you were to gaze at a globe from one angle, you'd see a circle. When we look at the moon, does it not look like a circle? Or even when we observe any other planet. But if God is above all, then Isaiah was right on saying that the earth had a circle, as the planet would look like one from space. Think about it. Here's something else to think about....

    “Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox. See now, his strength is in his hips,
    And his power is in his stomach muscles. He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit. His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron. He is the first of the ways of God; Only He who made him can bring near His sword." Job 40:15-19

    Now tell me, do you know of any living animal of this day that could possibly have a tail as large and magestic to resemble a cedar tree? Much less an animal who's bones can be related to beams of bronze? ONLY HE WHO MADE HIM CAN BRING NEAR HIS SWORD. Now God isn't one to lie. If only the creator (God) of this animal could bring its destruction, then clearly this animal MUST have been enormous. Now, we all know what happened to the Dinosaurs. They were wiped out all around the globe. Some say by volcanos, others by an asteroid. But why not by a flood? This would perfectly wipe out Dinosaurs. If there was a global shift, then this would easily explain why a mammoth has been found with food still in his mouth as long as in his stomach, perfectly reserved. Can you imagine the chaos that must've been brought upon the whole world? Animals would've been put into different climates in a matter of hours, maybe even minutes. This can also explain the disappearance of aquatic dinosaurs as well. Yes, a global flood would've taken place as a result. Now, if you look at the layerings of dirt, you'll find that some fossils were placed in between two or even three different layers. Fossils of the same animal. This can only tell you that a global flood took place. Cities have been found under the ocean of great design. Not just in one continent, but many. Besides that, the main thing im trying to point out, is that the bible described many things before science ever did. But people come up with their crazy imaginations, which is why there are different stories to how the dinosaurs actually went extinct. Since the beginning there hasn't been any evolution occuring, only an extinction. Many people argue that volcanic activity could cause a species to change, but tell me this, doesn't it take thousands or millions of years for a species to "evolve" according to science??? If this is true, do you really think that a certain species, which isn't even fit to survive certain conditions in the first place, would live throughout such a hostile environment for thousand upon millions of years without going extinct? I don't think so. Evolution is a flawed idea. Like I said, its all just been an extinction since the moment Man sinned.

    It'd be great if people started reasoning with themselves instead of believing every single thing the mainstream throws at them without questioning it. Its because of the mainstream that we have these crappy leaders that are taking away our rights little by little. There's so much proof of a global take over. I wish people would open their eyes. Revelation (which is a book in the bible) speaks of a one world government ruled by one leader (the anti-christ). Everyone will be forced to worship one religion which will be the religion of the beast (devil). If a world government comes to be, you can bet that they will take away all religion, as this will only keep seperation and continue wars. God is real, and so is Satan. People are refuse the truth because they willfully choose to do so. Maybe you refuse to believe because of your arrogance. Maybe you refuse to believe because you think all religious people are sub-human. For anyone to put their learning capacity above someone else is straight up foolish. We are all made the same and we all have the same learning capabilities, if anyone thinks otherwise then THEY are ignorant as they do not understand the likeness in which every human being is created. But hey what do I know, Im just a ignorant, religious bigot. Im sorry for wanting to search for the truth. Lies do not satisfy me.

    February 17, 2012 at 11:32 am |
    • WASP

      @adam: the mainstream has always been religion. science is the new kid on the block. if you have read every page of this blog you will see we have covered the dinosaurs already, their dead and their bones became stone, for bone to turn to stone it takes thousands of years in the perfect conditions for the bones to be preserved in such a way.......one of the reasons the fossil record is spottie. not every place on earth is condusive for the creation of fossils. before you start blathering on about dinosaurs living with humans, do some basic research on how fossils are created. next item, early humans lived with mammoths, namely neanderthal. here is another error in your thinking process, if you were dealing with toxic conditions wouldn't you move to an area that was easier to handle....i know i sure would. evolution is a process of adaptation, some adaptations benefit the population others hinder it. trust me being light complected isn't a benefit if your in an area of almost no shade or too much sun. i know many other adaptations that have failed or are a benefit please do some research the internet is full of knowledge. keep your beliefs, but just so you sound more intelligent read more books.

      February 17, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
    • cbinal

      @Adam Great post! Thanks! I totally agree. One thing these guys seem to overlook, the Bible says Adam was 930 year old when he died. Just about all reptiles continuely grow all of their life, ever seen a 900 year old lizard? I've seen 25ft snakes and alligators that they claim to be about 25 years old. So for a man to be 930 years old, I'm sure the environment was much different before the flood.
      @Wasp You are the one that needs to study how fossils are made. Water, sediment, extreme pressure. Try looking in to all of the things that happened during the Mt. St. Helens eruption trees were petrified, animals were fossilized, an entire forest was moved and replanted, layers of sediment were layed just like the socalled million year old sediments. Your own scientists that you worship were dumbfounded, they never thought it could happen so quickly.

      February 17, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • GeoArch

      cbinal, I am a professional quaternary geologist. There are so many errors in your description of Mt. St. Helens that it would be hard to know where to start. Suffice it to say you are mistaken in almost every way possible.

      February 17, 2012 at 12:48 pm |
    • WASP

      @cbinal: huh?
      So how are fossils formed anyway? There are several processes that plants and animals or their parts can be preserved. No matter which way preservation occurs it takes a lot of luck, pure happen stance. Most living things are quickly recycled upon death. Scavengers and bacteria usually consume all but bones and shells. Fossils have also been created by peat bogs, paraffin deposits, and volcanic ash.

      http://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com/how_are_fossils_formed.html

      http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossilrecord/fossilization/fossilization.htm

      http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/fossil_foolishness.htm

      February 17, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
    • cbinal

      @GeoArch Ahh OK, my bad, you said it, it must be true. I mean your name is GeoArch. You obviously missed the main point, I don't believe anything that guys like you say. I think your entire "science" is based on bad data. Somone says hey this rock is 20 million years old – how do you know? Because the fossils we found in it are 20 million years old, How do you know? Because the rock the fossils were in is 20 million years old.

      February 17, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      Wow, cbinal, do you really think that's how geologists date stratigraphy? That's pathetic, especially since you claim to be so well informed that you can dismiss all geology as unreliable. It's clear that you aren't even sure what geology is or how it's done.

      Suggestion: get a junior high school science textbook, start with chapter one....

      February 17, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
    • cbinal

      @Wasp – thanks for the links – I read them. Your links even seem to agree that the majority of fossils are made during catastrophes. Which I totally agree that there has to be alot of conditional variables to create a fossil and catastrophic events like a flood is usually a major generator. Being I also believe that the environment was different before the flood, different levels of carbon, oxygen, everything. And I do appreciate the fact that at least 2 of your links was solely focused on the science of the issue and didn't have anything to do with bashing Christians. If someone gives me a link to something like "talkorigins" you are wasting your time. If I want to learn science, I really don't need the instructor telling me how stupid I am for being a Christian at the end of ever sentence.

      February 17, 2012 at 2:44 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @Adam and @cbinal,
      Tails moving like cedars, bones of brass and/or iron? Even Dinosaurs don't have bones that strong, so is this realistic or allegorical?
      The fossil record shows a clear progression of organisms from lower/early to higher/later, adjusting for various geological activity, of course. This kind of progression makes no sense in a flood.
      For example, why is there no evidence of humans and dinosaurs together? Why are there no dolphins before sharks, or flowers before animals, or reptiles before fish, or as someone famous once said, "show me a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian...".

      February 17, 2012 at 3:30 pm |
    • cbinal

      @Non who says there's not. If you can't find one missing link, which by your standards there should be millions of them, then who says there's not a rabbit there? Why no human and dinosaurs together? Because you deny evidence that is there. Man footprints in preserved tracks of dinosaurs – they're there.

      February 17, 2012 at 4:07 pm |
    • Nonimus

      cbinal
      @Non who says there's not. If you can't find one missing link, which by your standards there should be millions of them, then who says there's not a rabbit there? Why no human and dinosaurs together? Because you deny evidence that is there. Man footprints in preserved tracks of dinosaurs – they're there.

      "missing link" is a misnomer. There are plenty of primate to human transitional fossils, look at wikipedia, while not a primary source it does have links to the actual fossil images in many cases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils), or try the Smithsonian Insti.tutes Human Origins web site (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils), but I'm sure you already know about those.

      I have never seen a archaeological site with confirmed human and dinosaur tracks in the same time frame. All that I have seen are generally misrepresentations, such as, Paluxy (http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm)

      February 17, 2012 at 5:06 pm |
    • Kenrick Benjamin

      Nonimus- I left you a message at the end of page 71.

      February 18, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @kenrick,
      I replied on 71.

      February 19, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
« Previous entry
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.