Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Burden of Proof: Why Most American Evangelicals Reject Long-Earth Evolution
ReligiousLiberty.TV ^ | 05/11/2012 | Michael D. Peabody

Posted on 05/11/2012 10:56:54 AM PDT by ReligiousLibertyTV

[dc]O[/dc]n May 14, noted philanthropist and neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson is scheduled to give the commencement address at Emory University and receive an honorary degree. But there is a problem. In recent weeks Emory faculty and students have asked the University to disinvite Dr. Carson because he is a critic of evolutionary theory and advocate of creationism. Faculty and staff have written that Dr. Carson’s “great achievements in medicine allow him to be viewed as someone who ‘understands science’” poses a direct threat to science that “rests squarely on the shoulders of evolution.”

The anti-Carson letter describes how there is “overwhelming” evidence of “ape-human transitional fossils” and how this evolution process has advanced an ability to develop animal models for disease and that even “the work of Dr. Carson himself is based on scientific advances fostered by an understanding of evolution.” The letter then argues that “the theory of evolution is as strongly supported as the theory of gravity and the theory that infectious diseases are caused by micro-organisms.”

In 2010, Gallup released a poll that found that 40% of Americans believe in strict creationism, the idea that humans were created by God in their present form within the past 10,000 years. Thirty-eight percent believe that God guided the process of human evolution from lower life forms over millions of years , and only 16% believe that humans evolved without divine intervention. Sixty percent of those who attend church weekly believe that we were created less than 10,000 years ago. Gallup notes that the numbers have remained generally stable for the past 28 years.

That the number of adherents of creationism remains so strong, even though Charles Darwin’s book, “On the Origin of Species” has been around since 1859 and has been taught in most public schools since the 1960s, is a testament to the persistent strength of American religious belief and faith over contradictory concepts.

Earlier this week, Forbes magazine staff writer Alex Knapp wrote an essay entitled, “Why Some Christians Reject Evolution,” arguing that many Christians reject evolutionary theory because it conflicts with the Protestant view of the doctrines of original sin and salvation.

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="347" caption="Photo credit - iStockPhoto.com"]Earth - IStockPhoto[/caption]

Perhaps the only way to explain how evolved human beings would end up with a soul is expressed in the hybrid evolution-creation concept advanced by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Humani generis (1950). Pius XII writes, "For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.”

In Catholic thought, this has been interpreted to provide room for the concept that human beings were created over millions of years through evolution, and that God ultimately provided pre-existing, pre-created souls to those He designated and that these souls reconnect to God through practicing the sacraments.

In contrast, American evangelicals tend to view Adam and Eve as actual living people, who were literally created by God as clay forms into which God breathed the breath of life. There was no death before the fall of humanity. The time frames are important because they rely on the Biblical chronologies Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-28 to prove that Jesus was in the prophetically-designated ancestral line of David, and draw the genealogical line all the way back to Adam, the first created human being.

Many evangelicals reject the hybrid view of creation and evolution because it would necessarily require them to regard creation, as discussed in the books of Genesis and of a new earth in Revelation, as allegory and submit the pervasive teachings of the Bible referencing Creation and other supernatural activity to the realm of mythology or cultural contextualism. Acceptance of “scientific” views of evolution would then, by necessity, require a major reconfiguration of matters of faith – and that is something that most adherents to strict creationism are unwilling to do.

Knapp, whose own religious beliefs are not indicated, notes that while some churches have found ways to incorporate the idea of change over time into their belief systems, “for many Christians, evolution isn’t a minor fact of science that can be resolved into the mythos of their faith. It is, rather, a fundamental attack on their faith and many things that they believe.”

There have been a number of heated arguments on the campuses of a diverse array of religious universities regarding how issues of origins should be taught. Some have tried to walk the middle line of teaching “intelligent design” as an alternative to creationism and evolution. Critics of those teaching intelligent design point out that trying to split the issue down the middle does no favors to either side and in the end is nothing but a weakened form of creationism, and an explanation that is of no value to secular science.

Within the larger context of American Protestant Christianity the debate continues without resolution. Among Christians, creationists are often asked to consider various forms of evidence of a long-history of the earth, but those advocating for a long-earth have largely ignored discussion of the genealogies of the New Testament and the concepts of original sin and salvation. Christian evolutionists have failed to provide a verse-by-verse rebuttal to the Biblical Creation narrative or to acknowledge the extent to which acceptance of creation would impact theology.

Instead theistic evolutionists operate on the supposition that Creationists will eventually bifurcate their religious beliefs from scientific understanding, because incompatibilities must be resolved in favor of science. This places faith directly in conflict with science and any resultant battle on these issues will take centuries if true academic freedom is to be granted, but can resolve faster if the voices of religious dissent are silenced and those who have openly criticized evolution are denied a seat at the academic table.

The attempt to “purify” academia by silencing the voices of critics such as Dr. Carson would be the first step toward a secular Dark Ages. So far, it appears that despite the controversy, Emory University’s commencement ceremony will go forward as planned.

###

In response to the controversy at Emory, as of this writing nearly 2,000 people have signed a Petition to reaffirm “Dr. Ben Carson’s Welcome and Defend His Right to Express His Views.” Click here to view the Petition.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Evangelical Christian; Religion & Science
KEYWORDS: academicfreedom; creationism; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-278 next last

1 posted on 05/11/2012 10:57:04 AM PDT by ReligiousLibertyTV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ReligiousLibertyTV

The public is generally not aware of how thoroughly the theory of evolution has been debunked over the past century. No normal science theory would survive such a history.


2 posted on 05/11/2012 11:04:27 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReligiousLibertyTV

How many here think it’s a clear cut sin not to reject the old earth theories outright?


3 posted on 05/11/2012 11:04:50 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

“there is “overwhelming” evidence of “ape-human transitional fossils”

Then why do we still have apes running around?

Shouldn’t they have “transitioned” by now?


4 posted on 05/11/2012 11:09:11 AM PDT by Salamander (If I'm too rough, tell me.....I'm so scared your little head will come off in my hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DManA
How many here think it’s a clear cut sin not to reject the old earth theories outright?

Is thinking or analyzing or measuring things a sin?

5 posted on 05/11/2012 11:12:47 AM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Salamander

I believe that the missing link is still missing.


6 posted on 05/11/2012 11:13:11 AM PDT by mc5cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mc5cents

Maybe unicorns ate it.

:)


7 posted on 05/11/2012 11:14:51 AM PDT by Salamander (If I'm too rough, tell me.....I'm so scared your little head will come off in my hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Salamander

It’s worse than that. There’s overwhelming reason to doubt that humans could be descended from hominids or apes.


8 posted on 05/11/2012 11:15:09 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DManA

—How many here think it’s a clear cut sin not to reject the old earth theories outright?—

I don’t. I’ve read the Genesis account in Hebrew and there is room to interpret the six days a multitude of ways. That said, I like to ask people, “If you could go back in time and meet Adam one day after he was created, based on his appearance how old would you guess that he is?

Same with the earth and the heavens.


9 posted on 05/11/2012 11:15:18 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

According to a “convincing” show I saw on one of the science channels a couple years back, you’re *all* ultimately descended from salamanders.

[and ~I~ am your overlord....so kneel!]

;D


10 posted on 05/11/2012 11:20:20 AM PDT by Salamander (If I'm too rough, tell me.....I'm so scared your little head will come off in my hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

A day is 24 hours long and six days is 144 hours long.

That fact is true today as it was at the beginning of time around 5,974 years ago.


11 posted on 05/11/2012 11:23:28 AM PDT by Uncle Slayton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ReligiousLibertyTV
“the theory of evolution is as strongly supported as the theory of gravity and the theory that infectious diseases are caused by micro-organisms.”

*snort!*

Go on, pull the other one!
12 posted on 05/11/2012 11:26:49 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salamander
Chimps have clearly 'transitioned' in a different direction. In fact their behavior is remarkably similar to that of dogs or wolves ~ and very different from that of humans.

DNA analysis shows that we share common genes with only 70% of the chimp genome, and we are more like the gorillas (peaceful vegetarians) in 15% of our genome. That gives you another 15% that's not particularly shared with the Great Apes.

Then there are the differences not so apparent where "They" have a gene and "We" don't, or we have a different number of copies, or the copies are stored in different places.

DNA tells us everything we need to know about 'the missing link' ~ and the first thing it says to us is that things are more complex than anyone ever imagined.

Time to read up on epigenetics ~ kind of Lysenko-ish and less Mendelian. Trick is through the magic of methylation you can end up with short circuits in your DNA that give you a beak instead of teeth (if you are a bird ~ for example), or maybe turn you into a gay instead of straight! We've known about mammalian "conditioning" for a very long time ~ but now they are able to put a chemical description to it.

Funniest thing, though I know hundreds of Evangelicals and not a one of them is a young earther. That is mostly a non-issue in their lives.

13 posted on 05/11/2012 11:27:29 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ReligiousLibertyTV

This is unacceptable.

The renowned brain surgeon will need to go to a re-education facility.

Intolerance will not be tolerated.


14 posted on 05/11/2012 11:29:26 AM PDT by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Slayton

My own ancestors were drawing instruction guides and providing storyboards (Of pictures) a good 8,000 years ago ~ you can find their stuff in the Kola Peninsula.


15 posted on 05/11/2012 11:29:37 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Slayton

My own ancestors were drawing instruction guides and providing storyboards (Of pictures) a good 8,000 years ago ~ you can find their stuff in the Kola Peninsula.


16 posted on 05/11/2012 11:29:54 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

They were assembled in factories. Out of the same stuff.


17 posted on 05/11/2012 11:30:52 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Slayton

You don’t believe in general relativity?


18 posted on 05/11/2012 11:35:47 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Slayton
"A day is 24 hours long and six days is 144 hours long."

But time is relative depending on other factors. What lasts 24 hours to someone moving the speed of light may last years for someone moving much slower. Thus, what took 7 days at the time could appear to us to have taken millions of years. General relativity changes everything in this regard.

19 posted on 05/11/2012 11:40:46 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ReligiousLibertyTV

I don’t care one way or the other. As Christians we are required to believe in the Apostles Creed, which does not contain any affirmations about how old the earth is or whether humans were created instantaneously or over millions of years.


20 posted on 05/11/2012 11:44:54 AM PDT by HerrBlucher (So)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

The Bible is factual, not relative.


21 posted on 05/11/2012 11:46:35 AM PDT by Uncle Slayton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher

For some reason when I re-posted the article here it missed this paragraph:

Original sin is the idea that God created an absolutely perfect “good” world and a single sin against God committed by one person marred the purity of creation and implicated all of humanity in the act. The Christian gospel teaches that the pre-existing penalty for act of separation from God was eternal death. Being that humanity could not save itself from this penalty, Jesus Christ, a member of the Holy Trinity, personally came to earth, lived a pure life, died, and was resurrected, reconciling fallen humanity to God, thus closing the sin-caused gap between humans and God. Human beings who accept this death as substitution for their own prospective penalty will be given eternal life in a new earth.

(This is compromised by evolutionary thought.)


22 posted on 05/11/2012 11:48:14 AM PDT by ReligiousLibertyTV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Tell me how and why an eyeball evolved. What came first, our immune systems or our need for an immune system? Could someone direct me to evidence of a single transitional fossil? No, not evidence of slight changes within a species, transitional fossils from one species to another. After all, there should be countless numbers of them. Please, someone give me the best 5 examples we see in nature today of something from one species that’s in the middle of turning into another. I’m not greedy, the top 5 will do. How about 1? Don’t tell me we just happen to be in a time in all the supposed billions of years of history that we can’t witness macroevolution happening. Lol.

Next time someone tells you you believe in fairy tales because you believe in the Bible tell them you’re not the one who believes a frog turns into a prince. Only evolutionists and 3-6 yr old girls believe that. :)


23 posted on 05/11/2012 11:50:36 AM PDT by Hayride
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

Man goes up to God and asks, “What’s a million years to you?”

God says, “a second”

Man asks, “What’s a million dollars to you?’

God says, “a penny”

Man then asks, “Can I have a penny?”

God says, “Sure, in a second.”


24 posted on 05/11/2012 11:53:32 AM PDT by dfwgator (Don't wake up in a roadside ditch. Get rid of Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Good one!


25 posted on 05/11/2012 11:58:34 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

Prove that.


26 posted on 05/11/2012 12:01:19 PM PDT by nuke rocketeer (File CONGRESS.SYS corrupted: Re-boot Washington D.C (Y/N)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: varmintman; The_Victor

Again, prove that assumption


27 posted on 05/11/2012 12:02:25 PM PDT by nuke rocketeer (File CONGRESS.SYS corrupted: Re-boot Washington D.C (Y/N)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ReligiousLibertyTV
Not necessarily.

From an august 2007 article by Scott Richert:

Almost 11 years ago, Pope John Paul II, in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, caused quite a stir by declaring that "new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis." Some Catholics, particularly traditionalists, believed that the Holy Father was stepping outside of his competence in making judgments on scientific matters. Others, including Catholic scientists, welcomed Pope John Paul's reaffirmation of the traditional Catholic principle that "Truth cannot contradict truth." In other words, to the extent that the theory of evolution has a solid scientific basis, it must be compatible with Catholic doctrine.

A decade before, the secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, delivered a series of homilies that were published in 1990 under the title In the Beginning . . . : A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall. In those homilies, he made a similar argument: The creation story in Genesis is a spiritual history. It simply doesn't matter what physical means God used to create the world and all living creatures therein; what matters is that man is both body and soul, and his creation is not complete until God has breathed the breath of life into him. And about the creation of the soul (and, thus, of the complete man), science can tell us nothing.

28 posted on 05/11/2012 12:09:50 PM PDT by HerrBlucher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

The probability of occurrence of the utterly improbable is extremely low, to the poinit of being unbelievable.
On this basis alone respected, highly accomplished, peer reviewed and published university faculty scientists of my acquaintance have declined to accept the evolutionary model. However, considering who it is that controls the gateways to advancement and tenure, they keep their doubts pretty much to themselves.


29 posted on 05/11/2012 12:13:22 PM PDT by Elsiejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Slayton
Where is your corroborating proof of that?
30 posted on 05/11/2012 12:15:13 PM PDT by nuke rocketeer (File CONGRESS.SYS corrupted: Re-boot Washington D.C (Y/N)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ReligiousLibertyTV

I don’t have much of a science background, but the problem I have with evolution generally is that it is hard for me to understand that genetics is that unstable and even if it is, why would a living thing mutate into something more complex rather than just breaking down.


31 posted on 05/11/2012 12:15:18 PM PDT by DonaldC (A nation cannot stand in the absence of religious principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Slayton

Can you answer the question? Is general relativity a fraud?


32 posted on 05/11/2012 12:28:14 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC

I find evo hard to grasp after a close examination of the five senses. The more you learn the more the realize that thatwe were created by God.

I have more respect for those who believe ET seeded the planet then those who believe life evolved by chance

yeah, right.


33 posted on 05/11/2012 12:30:21 PM PDT by winodog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ReligiousLibertyTV

If secularists can reduce us to mere animals they can do anything to us.


34 posted on 05/11/2012 12:43:08 PM PDT by Oratam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

The probability of occurrence of the utterly improbable is extremely low, to the point of unbelievability.
On this basis alone respected, highly accomplished, peer reviewed and published university faculty scientists of my acquaintance have declined to accept the evolutionary model. However, considering who it is that controls the gateways to advancement and tenure, they keep their doubts pretty much to themselves.


35 posted on 05/11/2012 12:55:54 PM PDT by Elsiejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC

Right on. Mutations [like the 2nd thermodynamic law] cause disorder, chaos, & extinctions. For evolution to be true it would be like DNA code providing the ‘intelligence’ thru random changes to rewrite itself but never causing any harm to the life forms.

Here’s a couple of links providing all the science one needs to know.

101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html


36 posted on 05/11/2012 1:00:42 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DManA
How many here think it’s a clear cut sin

The fact that we are alive is a sin, move on to Grace, something that is really important.

37 posted on 05/11/2012 1:03:34 PM PDT by itsahoot (I will not vote for Romney period. You can't trust the man with the big red (R))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DManA

I don’t think you’re supposed to consider “old Earth” theories separately. It interferes with the conflation.


38 posted on 05/11/2012 1:12:33 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ReligiousLibertyTV
“overwhelming” evidence of “ape-human transitional fossils”

Yeah, like NONE!

“the theory of evolution is as strongly supported as the theory of gravity and the theory that infectious diseases are caused by micro-organisms.”

Strongly supported? What does that mean? That a lot of Godless leftists support it, then I guess that is a true statement though meant to deceive.

“....fact of science” .....”mythos of their faith”.????

More like the mythos of their science” .....” fact of our faith.

The trouble here is as with everything else, THE MEDIA. They report leftist views as scientific fact (when they are anything but scientific) and report religious views as crazy.

39 posted on 05/11/2012 1:34:27 PM PDT by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

I have no trouble accepting the idea of an earth millions of years old but that cannot be equated with accepting the notions of evolution.

“In the beginning” has no time associated with it.


40 posted on 05/11/2012 2:04:28 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Salamander

Salamanders? Not likely. L Ron Hubbard said we’re all descended from clams!


41 posted on 05/11/2012 2:09:27 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DManA; mc5cents; Salamander; varmintman

I wade in here to say that I believe that the 6,000 to 10,000 year old earth/universe theory is as incorrect as the theory of evolution.

In the beginning God...that we probably can mostly agree is correct. Genesis 1:1 says, ‘In the beginning God created the the heaven and the earth.’

So when was that ‘beginning’? Probably ‘eons’ ago. I believe the Genesis ‘six day’ creation account, was as it reads, and was probably about 6,000 years ago. But the earth and heaven was already in existance.

We are told that before the ‘Fall’, when Satan (Lucifer) and his angels were cast out of heaven, Lucifer had been given dominion over the earth. The ‘Fall’ preceeds the Genesis account of creation. Therefore the earth and heaven also preceed the Genesis account of creation.

So Lucifer had dominion over the earth...over just a planet floating in space? No, there were creatures here too. There was a creation here before the Genesis creation. Fossil evidence supports this. The ‘Neandrathals’ were of that earlier creation...a creation destroyed by ‘flood’ at the time of the ‘Fall’. No missing link...there never was a link. That is all a part of the evolutionary pipe dream. That first creation was subject to Lucifer, who had been given dominion over the earth (and it’s inhabitants).

In Genesis 1:2 ‘And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.’

This was chaos...God did not create chaos...all of the six creation days are restorative.

In Genesis 1:26 ‘ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.’

God gave man dominion over the earth. Lucifer was long gone, and no longer had dominion over the earth. God gave this to man.

In Genesis 1:28, ‘And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.’

Note, God told them to be fruitful, and multiply, and REPLENISH the earth. This is the same instruction God gave to Noah after the flood...REPLENISH the earth.

We easily understand why Noah was told to REPLENISH the earth...only if the earth had been ‘PLENISHED’ in an earlier creation would God instruct Man (Adam) to REPLENISH the earth.

So, how long between creations was the earth in chaos? We do not know...not really necessary to know that. It could have been many milleniums. Eons, if you will.

After the Flood, God placed a rainbow in the sky as promise to never destroy the earth by flood again. This was after he had done it now two times. We know he will not do it a third time.

I could go on, but you get the idea. So have fun and flame away!


42 posted on 05/11/2012 3:28:33 PM PDT by GGpaX4DumpedTea (I am a tea party descendant - steeped in the Constitutional legacy handed down by the Founders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GGpaX4DumpedTea

I believe that science believes that the original “creation event” aka the big bang, took place about 15 billion years ago. As the bible says In John 1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. So all that existed was the mind of God and the creation story in Genesis is remarkably accurate as to what we understand of the order of events that shaped our universe as we see it today.


43 posted on 05/11/2012 4:05:34 PM PDT by mc5cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GGpaX4DumpedTea

I think your post was perfectly brilliant and I very much enjoyed reading it.

Thank you!


44 posted on 05/11/2012 4:43:53 PM PDT by Salamander (If I'm too rough, tell me.....I'm so scared your little head will come off in my hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GGpaX4DumpedTea

We have the one planet (Venus) in our system which is likely ballpark for some sort of a 5K - 20K age and looks it i.e. 900F surface temperature, massive thermal imbalance, massive upwards ir flux, total lack of regolith, statistically random cratering, and a surface so pristine as to cause the old earthers to be talking about a “resurfacing event(TM)” .5B years ago. Earth and Mars don’t look like that at all and have to be substantially older than that, but not hundreds of millions or billions of years old.


45 posted on 05/11/2012 6:38:09 PM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Slayton

Gerald L Schroeder, “The Science Of God: The Convergence Of Scientific And Biblical Wisdom”


46 posted on 05/11/2012 10:16:53 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
DNA tells us everything we need to know about 'the missing link' ~ and the first thing it says to us is that things are more complex than anyone ever imagined.

As I understand it, even if that missing link was found, it would do little or nothing to prove evolution since there are numerous missing links besides that particular one...

47 posted on 05/11/2012 10:36:37 PM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher
As Christians we are required to believe in the Apostles Creed

The Apostles didn't have a creed...

48 posted on 05/11/2012 10:40:21 PM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Correct. The apostles creed was developed afterward.

http://www.creeds.net/ancient/apostles.htm

"The Symbolum Apostolorum was developed between the second and ninth centuries. It is the most popular creed used in worship by Western Christians. Its central doctrines are those of the Trinity and God the Creator. It has been called the Creed of Creeds.

Legend has it that the Apostles wrote this creed on the tenth day after Christ's ascension into heaven. That is not the case, though the name stuck. However, each of the doctrines found in the creed can be traced to statements current in the apostolic period. The earliest written version of the creed is perhaps the Interrogatory Creed of Hippolytus (ca. A.D. 215). The current form is first found in the writings of Caesarius of Arles (d 542)."

49 posted on 05/11/2012 11:50:45 PM PDT by HerrBlucher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
It's much more likely that Venus was like Earth, or maybe the rocky core of jupiter.

Then a powerful intergalactic mining operation took over the place and stripped it of all the top side deposits useful to life ~ phosphorous, calcium, sodium, etc. as well as meteor deposits piled up since the formation of the solar system.

Earth was also mined but not as thoroughly ~ which is why we still have 40% of our original crust.

So, who were these guys and when did they do it?

Heck if I know ~ we can put some limits to it ~ certainly more than half a billion years ago, and maybe a billion before that but not much earlier. The meteor debris and detris would be insuffcient to attract secondary goldmining and there'd go the profit in this process.

50 posted on 05/12/2012 4:47:17 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-278 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson