Here are the results from Gallop polls going all the way back from 1982 to 2008:
And here's the link to the same:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx
Posted on 06/13/2009 9:29:28 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
“Since there are a about 500 zillion types of Christians many of which claim the other 400 zillion are not Christians how can you claim to speak for Christians?”
The Scriptures alone speaks the Word of God - Scripture speaks for Christians.
It doesn't speak for Jews?
It most definitely speaks for believing Jews. That was not what your originally asked.
I got it. You can not write down a definition of what a Christian is since there are so many definitions and you don’t want to alienate the other Christians?
“People like you are the Evos worst nightmare :o)”
Naw, we folks who actually understand science (aka “evos”) have no fear of anyone that brings actual information.
When it actually can stand scrutiny we incorporate it into the body of knowledge that is science.
The willful ignorance that is the “creation science” movement is puzzling to us and is often a source of amusement.
but you mis-state statistics with this article (I know, it’s what you do!) - the vast majority of folks in this country are not “creation science” types - and they include a majority of Christians.
Keep the fabrications and paranoiac rants coming. They never fail to entertain.
Not at all - I am a Bible believing Christian who calls Jesus Christ my Savior. I believe in Scripture as God breathed, immutable, unerring. I believe that anyone who studies the Scriptures according to accepted, traditional hermeneutics will have truth revealed to them - seek and you will find.
From the above you define a Christian as:
1. Believes the Bible
2. Calls Jesus Christ his savior
3. Believes the Scripture is God's word
4. Doesn't believe in the traditional literal interpretation of the Bible.
Thanks for the link. I had seen that before but forgot about it.
It’s interesting that of those that don’t believe in evolution, barely 1/4 could identify Darwin with evolution. (While most of those who do believe in evolution could identify Darwin).
Creationists often like to cite the number of people who don’t believe in evolution (by whatever poll) as evidence that the evidence for evolution is lacking. But it’s obviously going to be difficult to judge the evidence for a theory when one doesn’t know anything about it (such as people who’ve never heard of Darwin). So the problem is lack of knowledge.
Here’s a poll showing only about half the populace knows that the earth goes around the sun each year:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/pdf/at07.pdf
(page 6)
Is that for lack of evidence? Or lack of knowledge?
“we folks who actually understand science (aka “evos”) have no fear of anyone that brings actual information.
When it actually can stand scrutiny we incorporate it into the body of knowledge that is science.”
Is that right? Recently Mary Schweitzer, from North Carolina State University, found blood vessels and proteins in an “80,000,000 year old” hadrosaur fossil. What is the likelihood that this will be spinned (since it can’t be proven) that “scientists” were off by almost 80,000,000 years with regard to the survivability of tissue in fossils. The more obvious theory is that they were off by almost 80,000,000 years in dating the fossil. Chances of them coming to this conclusion is predetermined by their world view therefore, their conclusions should be determined to be flawed because of bias.
Here are the results from Gallop polls going all the way back from 1982 to 2008:
And here's the link to the same:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx
See #130
“Chances of them coming to this conclusion is predetermined by their world view therefore, their conclusions should be determined to be flawed because of bias.”
Let me finish this thought for you: The only explanation is that the Bible is literally true, in every word, right?
You also don’t have that hadrosaur story quite right, but really, is there any reason to argue?
You might want to back such comments up with links so we can evaluate your claims in context.
“You also don’t have that hadrosaur story quite right, but really, is there any reason to argue?”
Please set the record straight.
You said the author claimed that the Christians who compromise with Darwinism, to include the Pope, will burn in the Lake of Fire. Nothing you have quoted as evidence from the article mentions anything about either the Pope, or the Lake of Fire. As such, I can only conclude that you feel comfortable making things up as you go along.
Click the graph. :-)
Interesting. It wasn’t that long ago that scientists had hope that with modern technology that we could start collecting together some dino dna (this is what inspired Crichton to write ‘Jurassic Park’). Unfortunately, the dna has held up as well as expected, and we’re still waiting for a single dino nucleotide (proteins, otoh, are much hardier than dna). By your logic, I guess this means that dinos are much older than we thought? :-)
And also, Schweitzer was putting pieces of bones into an acid in the hope of getting such proteins (the acid dissolves bone), so keep that in mind when people say that evolutionists didn’t think such a thing was remotely possible.
“4. Doesn’t believe in the traditional literal interpretation of the Bible.”
I would agree with the first three points - point four needs clarifying. Proper understanding of Scripture involves understanding the text, which would include grammatical, historical, cultural(in other words interpreting it according to the culture during the era it was written), and contextual. The word traditional would not apply since many traditions of the Church do not agree with Scripture when Scripture is understood through proper hermeneutics.
“Please set the record straight.”
You brought it up. You said there were actual blood vessels found..... That’s not true - but truth, or even Truth is not your strong suit, is it?
Believe it or not, I don’t actually know everything. It’s just that when folks use logic and reasoning, you “creation science” types too often mistake it for omniscience because you don’t understand it. You don’t understand academic achievement, and research either. Your chronic failures in realms of hard science become a result of “atheistic conspirators”.
As a group, you’re amazingly consistent in your ignorance and intransigence - makes me wonder who keeps you in line? Perhaps it’s a creationist conspiracy, but really you guys aren’t smart enough for that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.