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.
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.
The seven out of ten pastors who reject evolution are correct; they certainly have not evolved.
ok so all christian prefer to believe in majick and aliens then in the ablilities of themselves. here is a major question for all the religious folks to think about. everyone knows about the library of alexanderia.....now just for instance let's say every piece of god's book burned up in that fire. now let's just say hmmmm all the followers of said book were wiped out during ghangis khan's rein of terror.....do you folks seriously believe that with no book and no knowledge left behind for that book, do any of you think you would be christian today? answer, no without the bible there wouldn't be any basis for your belief system; same with any belief system. if the romans would have been wiped out by the norse instead of the reverse happening everyone would still be praying to odin and thor. religion is a belief in the supernatural, science including evolution is based in reality, meaning what we can see, touch,taste,smell and hear from the natural world around us. i can listen to a birds song, is can teach a chimp sign language to communicate with it. i can not see, or speak with god directly regardless what a book might say. gods don't exist unless we acknowledge them. when people stop following a god it dies. all the gods that came before the christian god are now dead in the sence that no large group of humans worship them any longer. evolution is a process of adaption that takes thousands of years if not millions for a species to change. if adaption wasn't evident on the macro scale, them why do we have different races? answer adaption to our natural enviroments. more sun, hotter temperatures having more melonine in the skin decreases chances of skin cancer. europeons typically have smaller nausal passages due to the fact our colder enviroment would have needed the air to pass slower through our noses to warm, before it got to our lungs to prevent damage. that was an adaptation that you can see today in real life, there are literally thousands of macro scale adaptations that can be seen. if evolution was a stair case, adaptation would be the steps.
Learn how to spell.
Most Christians probably do not believe in magic or aliens. Magic is pagan and aliens are a possibility based on the vastness of the universe.
@bumper: "learn how to spell" is the best you can do? lmao let's hear your rebuttal bumper; i want to hear the great thoughts of such an educated person as yourself. let's hear those pearls of wisdom you hold so dear. and FYI bumper genesis 1:3 "and god said let there be light, and there was" that's majick.it saids nothing of how he created the light;just that he created it on the spot. Seeing god wasn't created or born on earth by definition he/it/she is an extra-terristrial......better known as an ALIEN. so yes christians do believe in majick and aliens due to those facts written in that handy little book.
Indeed, but it's a real shame you have to spell it out for the poor guy.
Sadly most people do not know the definition of magic. The mystical properties of any faith are not taught as magic but as truths backed up by blind faith. The pagans belived magic worked one way christians another.
Websters definition of magic:The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
I agree, that was a pretty lame argument.
"Who cares anymore. Science and religion have both become such a joke over the last two centuries."
Science has become a joke? These kind of statements absolutely kill me. What has become a sad joke is how ignorant of their own world people have become. You typed that on a computer, right? Connected to mine by satellites in space? Invented as a result of quantum mechanics? These are science-based technologies that weren't even dreamed of just a few decades ago. You're utterly surrounded by the results of science, down to the flame retardants in the cloth on the chair you are sitting in. It's like being in the middle of an ocean and denying the water.
Indeed, indeed. If you think about it too much, it gets frustrating.
well...when you think of how that flame retardant pollutes the environment...not to mention science's complicity in helping religious folks more effectively blow each other up...or the fact that much recent medical "science" has been skewed to favor the latest pharmaceutical poison for profit...i hope you can see why some of us educated folks reject organized religion and look askance at much of what passes for science these days.
undrgrndgrl, you have a good point, but those issues have more to do with business and capitalism than whether or not the scientific method is an effective tool for discovery and explanation. The scientific method works no matter what the social context, though the results might be used for "good" or "bad" things.
Science merely provides a reliable way to look at the universe. Valuable information when you want to make something that does what it's supposed to. So science provides tools that reliably work. You don't blame the tools, you blame the intent. A hammer can build a house or cave in a skull, but you don't blame the steel mill for murder just like you don't credit it for building a house.
The important bit is that science is SO GOOD at explaining how the universe works that both christian fundies and muslim jihadists use it in the same way. Both groups (and all in between) MUST use the same science despite the fact that it's the same science that they claim to disagree with so much.
Science works whether or not you believe in it, and it works consistently. That's why your critique is misplaced and you shouldn't say such silly things as "what passes for science." It's like looking at a house you don't like and saying, "It was built by 'what passes for a hammer'."
I am a christian. I also have a science degree. Let me just say it embarasses me to a very extreme degree when I see people who believe that in order to have faith, you must also turn off your brain.
Hot diggity dafodil we found a reasonable christian on this forum! Great to meet you!
Nicely said. On behalf of those of us who understand science, please breed – a lot. The world could certainly use many more of you.
This conservative Christianity is really getting out of hand. It is hard to fathom that they are actually serious. Christianity has been wrong over and over again throughout history – from the earth being the center of the universe, evolution (PA school case), during the Inquisition, Crusades, etc. Now half the pastors think the earth is 6,000 year old? And the worst part is that they go around the world even today trying to convince everyone that they are right! What kind of upside down, irrational, religion is this! For Brahman's sake, if you want to live in a delusional world centered on the Bible, at least keep it to yourselves!
Here's a direct quote from Darwin himself that I ripped off of wiki source:
The most direct evidence that evolutionary theory is falsifiable may be the original words of Charles Darwin who, in chapter 6 of On the Origin of Species wrote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
Goodbye Darwin's theory.
Let it be known. Dumper has no idea what the term "falsifiable" means, nor does he have any concept of how evolutionary science operates. It (dumper) merely throws together terms and phrases that it thinks makes "Darwinism" look bad. How ironical is it that with every post, Dumper further reveals his improper approach to debunking the science he dislikes and his ignorance of how that science operates.
It'd be like somebody arguing that modern architecture is a screwy discipline because of the way toothpicks are shaped. By all means, Dumper, do carry on.
Falsifiable does not mean false. Darwin's theory of evolution is false based on my previous blog postings.
Further, there are many examples of complex organs, so this is just one example of why it is false.
Furthermore, if you do reduce the complex organ down to its fundamental sub components, they are not evolving at all. This is why the theory is also incompatible with other branches of science too.
Well, Dumper, you've finally managed to make one correct statement: Falsifiable, indeed, does not mean "false." Now figure out what it means and why your quote above (that includes that word) is ridiculous based on the methods by which evolutionary science details its claims.
You remind me of Rick Santorum. Everybody knows he sounds silly; he knows he sounds silly, yet he can't help but just keep talking his silliness. If even 10% of what you say was correct or verifiable, you'd have published long ago and by now be a world-renown scientist. When, and at what university, will you publish your research? At least do it for the lulz!! 😀
"...which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications..."
Let's just agree to disagree. I believe in God, you don't, in the end only one of us is right. Get over it.
By the way, if I'm Rick Santorum (yuck!!), you must be the atheist version of Sarah Palin-Always wiling to boldly go into new areas with a perspective of blinding ignorance.
Also, what did you mean by bringing up the books of Hosea and Jeremiah? Explain.
Why didn't post the whole quote?
IF it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to the theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we take an organ common to all the members of a class, for in this latter case the organ must have been originally formed at a remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.
The bolding is mine.
"Darwin's theory of evolution is false based on my previous blog postings."
Could you direct me to these postings, I don't think I've seen them yet.
Let's talk about fire and brimstone versus the prosperity gospel. Joel Osteen is an example of prosperity gospel and Jimmy Swaggart is fire and brimstone. Joel is a nice guy and a great positive motivational speaker. However, he is very deficient in the realm of theology. In fact, I don't think he has ever mentioned the words Jesus, Satan, Heaven or Hell. The guy obviously needs to brush up on God's word and be more direct about the nature of the spiritual realm.
Jimmy Swaggart is just the opposite. He preaches hell and damnation. I don't like this approach because it is an attempt to encourage others through negative reinforcement. However, it is important to tell the truth. In the Bible, Jesus spoke more about the reality of Hell in comparison to Heaven. I'm sure most people do not want to believe in a hell, but, unfortunately, it does exist. Further, for individuals like Momoya, Hell is a likely scenario. They've had the opportunity to learn and read about God's word, but have willfully rejected Him in favor of atheistic and hedonism. This is one of the dangers of Darwin's false scientific theory. When taken as religion, it gives people a free ticket to a hedonistic life and eventually eternal torture.
If you had prefaced your post with – It is my opinion, not supported by any facts or evidence that... it would have been fine. As it stands now, it's just more inane religious drivel.
That you worship a being with uses extortion and demands worship is disturbing. Such tactics are Machiavellian and worthy of scorn, not worship. Your god is evil. If a human father had the traits of your god, we'd lock him away.
faceplm- You are questioning about worshipping God? have you heard about protocols when you are around dignitaries? If courtesy demands that you observe such standards around mortals, what makes you think you are exempt from worship when it comes to God?
A book written 2000+ years ago says so, so it must be true. Where do I sign up?
If a dignitary told me that if I didn't bow in a certain way that I'd be tortured, that dignitary would not be worthy of praise. Do you think Saddam was a great leader?
Why is that hard to understand?
Darwins' theory is neither false nor a religion. To be a religion requires a divine presence of some kind. Nowhere in Darwin's theory or in modern evolutionary theories does a divine presence come into play, so they are not religious in nature, no matter what Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort or Kent and Eric Hovind say. Also, evoultion is not false. It is supported by evidence that people like yourselves like to ignore.
What is your evidence that hell exists (and the prerequisites for entrance) outside of your Bible?
You seem to have a penchant for dissing Darwin - but ask a scientists for evidence of evolution outside of Darwin's book, and you will find that they have no trouble providing verified evidence from vast and disparate sources for you.
There is no evidence of a supernatural realm.
You cannot argue away protocols, protocols demand you observe them when you are around diginitaries.Whether saddam was a diginatory or not is not relevant when it comes to protocols Around the president/king/queen you observe these protocols whether you deem fit or not.
Likewise, whether you like it or not God is to be worshipped, quit arguing over this as you will never ever win on this one.
"saddam was a diginatory or not is not relevant when it comes to protocols Around the president/king/queen you observe these protocols whether you deem fit or not. Likewise, whether you like it or not God is to be worshipped, quit arguing over this as you will never ever win on this one."
W T F?
So if I declare the space around my desk a new country, like it or not you will have to follow protocol and bow before me!!
It's like saying "Whether you like it or not, our known universe exists inside a tiny marble that is currently being played with by giant aliens in another dimension!! Prove me wrong!"
Oh, and anyone can argue away protocols. You want me to bow to your King? I want your King to follow my protocol of tickling my taint with his tounge.
"You cannot argue away protocols, protocols demand you observe them when you are around diginitaries.Whether saddam was a diginatory or not is not relevant when it comes to protocols Around the president/king/queen you observe these protocols whether you deem fit or not.
Likewise, whether you like it or not God is to be worshipped, quit arguing over this as you will never ever win on this one."
You worship and praise and evil tyrant. Congratulations for you. I choose not to since I find doing so to be immoral and spineless.
hey in you kingdom you are the king/queen.Your dogs and cats and whatever else you possess can bow down to you.
But that is not the point, if around mortals there are some acceptable rules of etiquette so much more with God.
You can keep kicking your legs and scream like a 2 year old that you won't bow down to God, you will never ever ever win this one.
God is to be worshipped!
"But that is not the point, if around mortals there are some acceptable rules of etiquette so much more with God.
You can keep kicking your legs and scream like a 2 year old that you won't bow down to God, you will never ever ever win this one.
God is to be worshipped"
Your god sounds a lot like Vlad the Impaler. I guess the author of John was lying, then, when stating that god = love. Clearly this is not the case.
Do you respect those that bowed and worshipped hitler?
We obviously need to TAX RELIGION, and put the money towards better scientific education. A degree in theology is no degree at all. That 7 of 10 of these "educated" people do not believe the FACT of evolution is truly frightening. The poll said 54% believe we evolved, why are the stupid pastors so out of touch with the norm.? xmas makes me ill.
No mortal is worthy of being worshipped only God is to be worshipped.
What is worship?
Evelyn Underhill defines worship thus: "The absolute acknowledgment of all that lies beyond us—the glory that fills heaven and earth. It is the response that conscious beings make to their Creator, to the Eternal Reality from which they came forth; to God"
I agree with that definition.
@rainbow – and which god is it that we should worship?
"No mortal is worthy of being worshipped only God is to be worshipped."
Got it: worshiping torturing tyrants who are mortal: bad. Worshiping torturing tyrants who are immortal: good. Thanks for the distinction.
HB-The one true God.
FP-Where did you get that impression of God being a tyrant? Did you have a relationship with God ever in your life? I and many other believers I know of think of God as a loving and compassionate God. Defintion of compassion includes moulding /shaping a mortal into a better person.
Re: protocols and worshipping god- what a load of bullsh!it!! There is no such requirement for anyone to follow some cult's ridiculous rituals or accord them any respect at all! In fact, we all have the right to speak and act, legally, against them. I refuse to acknowledge *any* religious charlatan (I refused to even speak with the shaman at both my parent's funerals) and every time I hear "god keep this land" in our national anthem I reply with "there are no gods!"
I'm sorry Rainbow, but your version of a god, like all versions of all gods is pretend. But if your god did exist, he would be a mean, petty, sick, twisted, psychotic, schizophrenic, bigoted, thug and bully. You can bow doen all you want. But I live in the United States of America, not the United States of Jesusland. My country is not, and never will be a theocracy.
@rainbow: seriously? if the queen of england ever came to america and tried to make my child bow to her will or she would torture him for all eternity.......well she would need some ice because i would kick her back across the pond. no human or other thing has the right to force you to do anything, that is removing free will. it is my choice to bow to anyone, and darlin' everything i've done in my life i'm not bowing to any one.
Rainbow wrote, " -The one true God."
We have invented tens of thousands of gos. Yours is no more, nor no less special than any of the others. As of now, the record holder is an idol representing a proto-snake type god dating back about 75,000 years from what is now Botswana.
"FP-Where did you get that impression of God being a tyrant?"
I read the bible. I fail to see how I could draw any other conclusion. Only a tyrant would have a worship or burn philosophy. Only a tyrant would allow people to be eternally tortured.
Looking at both sides, I really haven't found any reason why religion and science couldn't be meshed. I mean, if God created everything then he created scientific laws too, right? The bible doesn't say that God didn't use evolution in creation and I doubt He would have said, "Gravity. Huh. I meant to do that" I've read The Science of God and it seems to make sense although many of the scientific concepts are a bit over my head. Arguing over science vs religion seems to make about as much sense to me as arguing right foot vs left foot. They can both go in the same direction.
We have a perfectly good scientific theory for the diversity of life on earth. We have good scientific hypotheses for abiogenesis and for the Big Bang. Adding a god to the mix – any god – just adds an unnecessary layor of complexity that is not needed or warranted.
It's true that adding God does complicate matters but they (science and religion) are not necessarily mutually independent. And some people do want that added complexity. I'm just pointing out how each thought process doesn't necessarily negate the other unless (seemingly) the person making the claim is trying to do so and forcing theories accordingly.
Science is science. Religion is religion. Science deals with the natural. Religion deals with the supernatural. Science deals with facts. Religion deals with unsupported beliefs.
Claiming religion has a place in science is like saying we need to include auto mechanics in the teaching of Elizabethan Literature.
Here in the US, people have a right to be ignorant – and from the comments on this board, many take advantage of that right. People do not have the right; however, to force others to be as ignorant as they are.
And force should never come into it. Force by a person is unwarranted and only diminishes the person's argument. That being said, in an argument of faith of any kind, whether in science, religion or auto-mechanics, an intelligent person is at least going to hear the other person out, especially if s/he wants her/his own views to be considered. I'm well aware that most people can't be bothered to listen; that's what really makes people clash, in my opinion, not the points themselves. If you look at it closely enough, there is good and bad in every point of view. To me, a point that refutes my own is worth listening to; I may even take it up if it makes enough sense.
LostNomad – there is no faith needed, required, or allowed in science. People who claim there is, show that they do not understand science.
People who claim that their religious myths are just as valid as actual science at explaining the diversification of life on earth show that they choose to be ignorant about science.
There are still people who believe the earth is flat. Why should we listen to them and give their ideas credence? People who believe humans poofed into existence 6000 years ago are just like these flat earthers.
What's interesting is not so much what people believe as why they believe it. No, religion doesn't necessarily have everything right but that's no reason to toss the whole thing out. It has alot right, too, as far as I can tell. The search for truth doesn't shouldn't really end with science; discovering the truth of yourself requires taking a step outside of set laws, if only temporarily.
Faith is faith and facts are facts. There is no intersection of faith and science.
You wrote, " What's interesting is not so much what people believe as why they believe it." No child is born a theist. Every child is born an atheist. Your religious beliefs are a construct of how, when, and where you are born and raised. Otherwise we would see infants being born believing in Islam in the middle of Dallas to Christian parents.
Darwin certainly does not apply to anything at the nano-scale and only works within a limited context that is loaded with counterexamples that discredit the entire theory all together..
The statement that it works for nano-science is a conflagration of my previous postings.
Please stop calling the Theory of Evolution, "Darwin". It would be like calling your entire Bible, "Moses".
Lighten Up – for the win!
Using Bumpers line of reasoning – Newton, er, gravity, is wrong, because Newton didn't know about gravitational lensing.
Gravity is likely wrong because it is incompatible with QM.
@bumper: huh? gravity is likely wrong? then please educate me on what you believe keeps the oxygen/nitrogen mixture you breath every few seconds from floating away? here is the only wierd thing about gravity, everything in the universe has an opposite: you have matter/anti-matter, proton/electron, gravity has no negitive or opposite. it's either 0% or some form of positive force up to 100% which is a blackhole.
All that means is that 7 out of 10 of these so-called 'pastors' are mental midgets.
Evolution, with its evidence of transitional fossils, geological column, DNA evidence, vestigial organs etc., is very damning to the biblical Creation Story.
If god created all the organisms on the planet, then He must have created even the diseases that have caused and are causing so much death and misery for humans and animals. He would have had to fashion the tick and the flea. The mosquito and blood flukes. And worms that bore into a child's eye.
How could an all good god do such a thing? Why would He spend His time creating gruesome things to cause human suffering? Yet, these horrors exist. And if god didn't create them, who did?
Evolution explains the diversity of the planet's organisms, including the pathogens and the parasites that have caused so much human death and misery.
If the Creation Story is a fable, then Adam and Eve did not exist.
If Adam and Eve did not exist, then there was no original sin.
If there was no original sin, then it cannot be the reason god allows so much suffering in the world. Instead, there are natural causes for earthquakes and floods and other disasters.
If there was no original sin, then there was no need for a redeemer.
If there was no redeemer, then Christianity is a based on a false premise.
"If we cannot believe in the First Adam, why believe in the Last [Christ]?" 1 Corinthians15:45
If the Creation story is a myth, then there is no reason to believe any of the bible, for the entire bible is based on Genesis.
If we evolved, there is no soul –> no afterlife –> no need of a heaven or hell.
LOL, which is why the Creationists fight so hard against evolution. And why many Evangelicals are reinterpreting Genesis to encompass an old earth. Their reasoning is that everyone before them, interpreted the Creation Week, incorrectly. *snicker*
Let's see... "And there was evening and there was morning, one day." – Umm... That's millions of years to you and me!
The Christian god is no more likely to exist than unicorns, satyrs, fiery serpents, or talking snakes, or Allah, or Zeus or Santa.
well put, indeed!
Who cares anymore. Science and religion have both become such a joke over the last two centuries. Evolution is a religion and most of it's adherrants blindly worship it. Just as with most religion the narrative is so unbelievable that people can easilly refute it and show it to be a fraud so they have to resort to gestapo tactics. They shove the dogma down our throats and try to force people to salute it while looking down on those ignorant sceptics.
Wow, you really are as delusional as any other religious jerk. Evolution is a proven FACT.
I guess this means you've hit the bottom of the well as far as scientific arguement goes. Evolution is such a cult. Everyone gets to be smart just by claiming to believe it. Doesn't matter if you actually study it or understand it. Simple pledging allegiance is good enough!
on a side note evolution worshippers are an ardent lot , they have overlooked the fundamental weakness of this theory.
The theory of evolution is the single most confirmed theory in all science. In 150+ years it has never been falsified. Not even close.
Perhaps Mark and JPM could post this fundamental weakness as well as posting the citations to the science that falsify the ToE.
Science has become a joke? You typed that on a computer, right? Connected to mine by satellites in space? Invented as a result of quantum mechanics? You're utterly surrounded by the results of science, Mark. It's like being in the middle of the ocean and denying the existence of water.
There is plenty of evidence to support evolution, from
fossils, like archeoptyrx, ambulocetus, and tiktallik to
biochemistry, like cytochrome-c to
genetics, like human chromosome 2 and endogenusretrovirus (ERVs) to
biogeography, like marsupails.
"There is plenty of evidence to support evolution"-No there is not.
Prove the evolution of man using fossils from his original ancestor.
Once again, in science we don't prove things, we explain things. You fundiots want to see an unbroken line of fossils. This only shows that you choose to be ignorant about science. Otherwise you would understand how rare fossilization is.
What you fail to understand is that we can confirm ToE without a single fossil. It's in our DNA. Perhaps you can use your bible to explain why humans and chimps share ERVs? Perhaps you can use your bible to explain how thw simian chromosomes 2a and 2b inverted and fused to form human chromosome 2?
@Truth vs fiction,
"Prove the evolution of man using fossils from his original ancestor."
As @Primewonk stated, science doesn't deal in "proof", that's mathematics, and if you are looking for an complete chain of parent-child fossils from man's "original ancestor" (which is most likely a soft-bodied single celled organism 3+ billion years ago,) then you don't understand the theory of evolution or how fossils are formed.
As I stated, there is plenty of evidence that *supports* evolution, not that proves it, and I provided just a few key examples of such evidence. If you want to refute my statement, explain why those examples do not support evolution.
"It's like being in the middle of the ocean and denying the existence of water."
Mark likes living in the ocean. He just chooses to think that some of the water isn't, you know, water. Because his ancient book says so.
Jesus never fails, but Darwin's theory has already failed within it's own defined context and when one tries to apply it more generally to physical and computational sciences.
Darwin applies to biology as well as computation and nanotechnology.
Darwins theory applies to nothing in a practical way. There's nothing tangible about your comment at all. You believe in Darwins theory and as you see it the theory can be applied to EVERYTHING but the problem is there is no change if you neglet to apply Darwins theory to these things. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
Tom Cruise believes that Scientology can be applied to ANYTHING in life. Need to be a great bowler? Scientology! Need to master a new language? Scientology! Need a better marriage? Scientology!!!! That's not proof of anything other then tbe biase that exists in Tom Cruise head.
You're right Mark. It's only the entire basis for biology and preventative medicine. No connection at all.
On second thought you are right. It isnt Darwin's theory that I was talking about, it's evolution.
I assume we're all talking about macroevolution since that is the theory that causes these discussions. So by all means please enlighten us with some evidence that belief in man evolving from apes is responsible for our advancement in biology or any other field.
Just because evolutionists tell you a belief is valuable to science doesn't mean it's true.
And allow me to dispell the first myth you're liable to come back with. Drug resistant bacteria has nothing to do with macro evolution. Just like a tadpole turning in to a frog has nothing to do wth a monkey gradually turning in to a human due to a build up of genetic mutation. There is no need for a person to believe in the theory of evolution in order to study drug resistant bacteria.
The micro vs. macro evolution argument would be amusing if it wasn't so pathetically weak. Question for those that somehow think that evolution only works on certain time scales: where is the line, and how is a process aware of itself so that it knows where to stop?
The questions you asked can actually be answered through scientific observation. The problem is that evolutionists ignore those answers and inject a completely fantastical theory of macro evolution that breaks through all these boundaries. There is no limit to this type of evolution because it was a work of fiction to begin with.
I don't understand what you mean about "amusing but pathetically weak". It is what it is. There's evidence of boundaries. The term macro evolution seperates what is observable and can happen from what is not observable and not likely to happen.
Mark wrote, " please enlighten us with some evidence that belief in man evolving from apes is responsible for our advancement in biology or any other field." And he wrote, " Just like a tadpole turning in to a frog has nothing to do wth a monkey gradually turning in to a human"
So which is it Mark? Because Apes are not Monkeys. Apparently you denigrate what you choose to be ignorant about.
Anyway, for the bajillionth + 23rd time – no one who understands science in general and evolution in particular says humans descended from either apes or monkeys.
And we wonder why America is falling behind in science and technology. Facepalm!
Looking around, some of us don't wonder at that at all.
Surely Xtian is cleverer than he/she seems, and is being ironic. If not, Xtian is reeaally dim, and unaware of the crushing irony of the statement.
LOL!!!! I can't believe that anyone does believe in evolution!!!! It's all full of holes!!! How does anyone believe in that nonsense anymore?!? It's just pitiable!!!
Becuase Supernatural explanations make much more sense?
I suggest you read through these threads.
Whatever you think is a "hole" in theory has most likely been explained by one of the several Phd's who have contributed their knowledge to this debate.
There is plenty of evidence to support evolution, from
fossils, like archeoptyrx, ambulocetus, and tiktallik to
biochemistry, like cytochrome-c to
genetics, like human chromosome 2 and endogenusretrovirus (ERVs) to
biogeography, like marsupails.
LOL. Ohh These poor guys are desperate. Saying the earth is younger than human civilization...which has been around for about 12,000 years.
“God used evolution to create people" and 12% of the pastors agree! It's seems were still on the long road of evolution, but we are making progress... What's next, we take responsibility for our own actions??? wow!
For individuals like Momoya, Darwin's incorrect theory of evolution is the perfect excuse to continue a life of atheist belief and abject hedonism.
Hope in the afterlife is not an example of hedonism. Hedonism refers to pursuing the desires of the flesh in the physical realm in this world. Hedonistic comfort in this life will certainly translate into discomfort in the afterlife for non-believers.
In paraphrasing a very famous missionary (who was in deed paraphrasing an earlier figure in History),
"It is much better to lose when you can't keep in order to gain what you can't lose".
Sorry, but if the Bible is to be believed, it's hard to imagine that the same God that was angered so much over Eve's eating the apple that he had to go out and create a VAST number of excruciating diseases and calamities to punish us in our "fallen state" is probably not going to be creating a Club Med experience for us in some afterlife. And if it IS true, it's time to start worrying that God is bipolar.
These legends were created and propagated because it's what people WANT to believe, in the same way that young children want to believe in Santa Claus. And they serve a purpose for society. Much easier to find soldiers who will go to war if they believe that a glorious afterlife awaits them if they're killed.
And, we keep revising the teachings so that they're more palatable to the current generation. Whereas in the past, you were more likely to hear a fire and brimstone sermon about the likelihood of ending up in hell, today, you're much more likely to hear a prosperity-based sermon. That's what keeps the donations coming in. Churches have ALWAYS taught what people largely wanted to hear.
See my last reply to Dumper on the previous page. It's like a bumpy ride at the edge of a bog, you keep thinking it might open up to a decent-looking marshland, but it's really just all ruts and mosquitos.
" Darwin's incorrect theory of evolution"
Yet again you post this drivel. And yet again you fail to post the science that supports your drivel.
Deephaven – "Whereas in the past, you were more likely to hear a fire and brimstone sermon about the likelihood of ending up in hell, today, you're much more likely to hear a prosperity-based sermon."
Yes... and I just love that 1980s addition of the pop religio-psychology tack about having a "personal relationship" with "God"/Jesus!
I like the mugs in the picture at top, oh by the way most of life on earth is bacterial and underground. And Beetles are the predominant (larger) species on earth.