Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Poll: Almost half in U.S. creationist
United Press International ^ | June 2, 2012

Posted on 06/02/2012 9:30:25 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

PRINCETON, N.J., June 2 (UPI) -- The percentage of U.S. residents who believe God created human beings less than 10,000 years ago has changed little in the past 30 years, a Gallup poll says.

In a report Friday, the Gallup organization said 46 percent held that view in the most recent poll. In 1982, when Gallup first asked the question, the percentage was 44 percent and the average over the years has been 45 percent.

The poll was conducted for USA Today.

Almost one-third, 32 percent, said humans have evolved over millions of years with divine guidance, down from an average of 37 percent. Another 15 percent say that evolution took place without God's guidance.

Regular churchgoers and Republicans are more likely to have a creationist view of human evolution. While 58 percent of Republicans believe humans were created in the past 10,000 years, only 41 percent of Democrats and 39 percent of independents agree.

People who have attended graduate school and those who do not go to church regularly are more likely to support evolution.

Gallup interviewed a random sample of 1,012 adults between May 10 and May 13 by telephone. The margin of error is 4 percentage points.


TOPICS: Current Events; Evangelical Christian; Religion & Culture; Religion & Science
KEYWORDS: bible; creation; creationism; evolution; gagdadbob; onecosmosblog

1 posted on 06/02/2012 9:30:34 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I don’t have enough faith to believe in the macro-evolution fairy tale.


2 posted on 06/02/2012 9:33:16 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Like Emmett Till, Trayvon Martin has become simply a stick with which to beat Whites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Quit being so negative, Fairy Tails usually have a grain of truth in them.


3 posted on 06/02/2012 9:37:03 AM PDT by bray (Power to We the People)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Yet only one viewpoint is allowed to be taught in government schools and it is not even the majority opinion. IMO, there’s nothing wrong with allowing all sides to be presented and let the student make up their mind which is true.


4 posted on 06/02/2012 9:47:39 AM PDT by OrangeHoof (Our economy won't heal until one particular black man is unemployed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

To believe that God created the universe is not the same as being a creationist. Creationist refers to young earth creationists. 52 % of the population is not YEC.

The anti-creation (not anti-creatinist) forces would like to equate belief in any form of divine creation with YEC because they want to discredit all belief in creation, something science cannot do. Science can argue, scientifically, against young earth creationism (b/c YEC argues scientifically for young earth). Belief in creation without further specifying how it happend (young earth, old earth, mediam-age earth) cannot be argued against scientifically because it is a belief about whether or not something or Someone exists outside the scientifically observable universe. Science can’t say yes or no to that. Philosophy and religion can.

Anti-creation forces would like to make all belief in creation into a matter of science and then insist that science disproves all belief in creation. That’s a stupid and non-scientific position but they try it anyway.

The way they attempt this sleight of mind is to lump all belief in creation, old earth and young earth creation belief together.

The title should have read “52 % Believe in Creation”

Christians and Jews need to fight against the effort to lump all of us under the label “creationist.”


5 posted on 06/02/2012 9:49:46 AM PDT by Houghton M. (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Scientific obfuscation, half-truths, and propaganda aside, all I have to do is walk out my front door to marvel at the magnificence of a world that PROCLAIMS the existence of a Creator.

In God's unfathomable subtlety and transcendent, utterly refined wisdom, He made it easy for a child to understand this, or even a self-satisfied “scientist”.

6 posted on 06/02/2012 9:56:23 AM PDT by EyeGuy (Armed, judgmental, fiscally responsible heterosexual.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.
Exactly. bttt

Of course you are free to insist upon young earth creationism, but you must know that it is going to contradict so much evidence that you will essentially have to split your mind in two. You will live in a scientific world with all of its blessings, and yet, a part of you will have to reject it, or at least not be able to fully integrate it into your belief system.

<>

Unintelligent Debate

<>

"....Even more generally, time is not just mere duration, but the transforming mode of being. It has cycles and archetypal qualities, which is why we can even speak of “growth” or “evolution.” In this scheme, evolution is a necessary consequence of the Absolute manifesting in time. Ironically, progressive evolution (as opposed to mere change) is something that cannot be explained (because it is inherently vertical) by any purely horizontal metaphysics, which is why so-called “creationists” are even more materialistic than materialists. It is always a mistake to try to reduce metaphysical truth ­ truths that must be true ­ to your narrow creed. Rather, your task is to understand how these timeless truths are reflected in your creed. God did not give you an intellect only to ignore its most lofty capabilities. Please." HERE: Sunday Nonsense & Theidiocy

7 posted on 06/02/2012 10:16:29 AM PDT by Matchett-PI ("There is no limit to the depravity of the liberal mind" ~ Rush Limbaugh 5/23/12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Microevolution is a term - when used by creationists - that is the evolutionary equivalent of saying that the mechanism you use to walk from your bedroom to the kitchen is insufficient to get you from New York to Los Angeles


8 posted on 06/02/2012 10:18:41 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin
Microevolution is a term - when used by creationists - that is the evolutionary equivalent of saying that the mechanism you use to walk from your bedroom to the kitchen is insufficient to get you from New York to Los Angeles

I like that. Mind if I paraphrase it for my tagline?

9 posted on 06/02/2012 10:42:42 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Journalists and pollsters will never understand the simple truth of Judeo/Christian faith. They just don’t get it.


10 posted on 06/02/2012 10:49:38 AM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Failure to convince people that we’re all just critters.

Another one of the failures of public education.


12 posted on 06/02/2012 11:05:48 AM PDT by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

One thing which is clear is that our level of science literacy is dropping. This trend, as much as any other factor, threatens the competitiveness of the US as a world power.

It’s difficult for the scientific profession to compete. All we have are facts and logic, and we tend to be rather unexcited and calm in our delivery. Contrast that to the appeal to emotions and promises of miracles that the anti-science side uses, and we really are in a bind.


13 posted on 06/02/2012 11:07:29 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin
I can walk from NYC to Los Angeles.

I cannot walk to Australia.

Micro-evolution -- a fruit fly having descedants which are different fruit flies.
Macro-evolution -- a member of the order of animals known as reptiles having descendants which are members of the order of animals known as mammals.

That's like walking to Australia. Deep Waters. Science has no evidence for such a thing. They simply believe it happened.

14 posted on 06/02/2012 11:08:06 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Like Emmett Till, Trayvon Martin has become simply a stick with which to beat Whites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin
Microevolution is a term - when used by creationists - that is the evolutionary equivalent of saying that the mechanism you use to walk from your bedroom to the kitchen is insufficient to get you from New York to Los Angeles

I think a better analogy would be the difference between you child being born with a few less hairs than their parents versus being born with fully functional wings. I know evolutionists would argue the wing slowly develops over millions of years so would they just be lumps for a while, and then one day they are actually functional.

Of course we have all sorts of species with body parts which obviously do not work now but will be useful in a few million years.
15 posted on 06/02/2012 11:17:45 AM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
It’s difficult for the scientific profession to compete. All we have are facts and logic, and we tend to be rather unexcited and calm in our delivery. Contrast that to the appeal to emotions and promises of miracles that the anti-science side uses, and we really are in a bind.

LOL, you people are delusional. Science doesn't promise miracles? You mistake arrogance for logic and confuse silly stories with facts.

16 posted on 06/02/2012 11:27:13 AM PDT by Tramonto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tramonto
Also note the "anti-science side" smear.

If anyone says "I'm not convinced that Evolution is true" then they are anti-science. They reject all of science. They must oppose antibiotics, modern dentistry, computers, etc. To cast aside Evolution is to cast aside all of science! Oh! To be branded as "anti-science"!

17 posted on 06/02/2012 11:41:10 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Like Emmett Till, Trayvon Martin has become simply a stick with which to beat Whites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

My apologies. I just criticized your post and meant to copy you on it as a basic courtesy. My fingers moved too fast and I didn’t include your tag. Although I am critical of your view on this matter, I wouldn’t want you to think I was being critical behind your back!


18 posted on 06/02/2012 11:43:37 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Like Emmett Till, Trayvon Martin has become simply a stick with which to beat Whites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tramonto
LOL, you people are delusional. Science doesn't promise miracles? You mistake arrogance for logic and confuse silly stories with facts.

And there, you illustrate the problem. Our logical and factual manner of expressing ourselves is interpreted as "arrogance." And we just don't have the allure of those who promise to wipe away all your doubts about your faith, and tell you they really care about you and your immortal soul, if you'll simply close your eyes to science.

19 posted on 06/02/2012 12:13:25 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; Tramonto
"....we [scientists] just don't have the allure of those who promise to wipe away all your doubts about your faith.."

I see you allow for scientific faith, but religious faith makes no sense to you. bttt :)

The Childlike Faith of the Scientific Fundamentalist

20 posted on 06/02/2012 12:59:05 PM PDT by Matchett-PI ("There is no limit to the depravity of the liberal mind" ~ Rush Limbaugh 5/23/12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
I see you allow for scientific faith, but religious faith makes no sense to you. bttt :)

I've never heard of "scientific faith."

I'd say that site you linked helps to illustrate the magnitude of the problem.

21 posted on 06/02/2012 1:48:39 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
And there, you illustrate the problem. Our logical and factual manner of expressing ourselves is interpreted as "arrogance."

You remind me of the mooninites. I guess we cannot understand your logic. It is superior.

22 posted on 06/02/2012 2:52:31 PM PDT by Tramonto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Because you have no knowledge of Pangaea, or understand Plate Tectonics does not mean it did not happen, much like the fact of common ancestry. But nice try at setting up your strawman


23 posted on 06/02/2012 3:12:02 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Valance

I believe in the Old Testament; that the universe is ~15by old, that our galaxy is ~11by, that it took at least 3 generations of stars to produce the Sun across that time to some 5BY ago, that Earth is ~4.5 by old, that oil and coal are of biological orgin incorporated in sediments some 75 to 5my ago and that essentially “modern” man is about 85,000 years old.

There’s good scientific basis and thank God for all of it.


24 posted on 06/02/2012 4:42:18 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

You’ve been reading my mail onedoug. I agree!


25 posted on 06/02/2012 4:54:04 PM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Almost half in US voted for McCain. I don't give a rat's rear what the majority or near majority opinion of this nation is. It gave us a disaster in the White House, the Kardashians, and Dancing with the Stars.
26 posted on 06/02/2012 6:30:12 PM PDT by gundog (Help us, Nairobi-Wan Kenobi...you're our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

I understand why you want to switch the topic to geology — defending the biology is pretty hard. And I have to say that it is mighty slick of you to accuse me of posting a strawman argument while you switch the topic over to geology. Well played!


27 posted on 06/02/2012 6:38:42 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Like Emmett Till, Trayvon Martin has become simply a stick with which to beat Whites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tramonto
You remind me of the mooninites. I guess we cannot understand your logic. It is superior.

Right. Because it's illogical to think that scientific evidence could possibly prove anything, and any logical person would reject scientific evidence out of hand.

28 posted on 06/02/2012 7:06:39 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

The typical ‘logic’ of evolutionists involves made up stories that have zero evidence, circular reasoning and arrogance.

I wonder if you believe in the ‘science’ of anthropogenic global warming as well?


29 posted on 06/02/2012 7:45:20 PM PDT by Tramonto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tramonto
The typical ‘logic’ of evolutionists involves made up stories that have zero evidence, circular reasoning and arrogance.

I wonder if you believe in the ‘science’ of anthropogenic global warming as well?

You're comparing apples and oranges.

The process of evolution--not the theory, which was devised to explain the process, but the process itself--is an unavoidable feature of biology which scientists both account for and exploit to advance knowledge within the life sciences. It's apolitical, and, for the most part, people seem to appreciate the advances we've made using it. Furthermore, not all people of faith see a threat to their faith because evolution plays such a major role in biology. I certainly don't. Those who do, however, threaten scientific advancement if they should ever get into a position where they have the political power to stop or impede any research that is related to evolution.

On the other hand, the hypothesis that the fluorescence of CO2 within the infrared portion of the light spectrum has a disproportionate effect on the natural warming/cooling cycles of the earth has never, to my knowledge, been demonstrated. But, for politicians who've never succeeded in achieving authoritarian control (aka socialism) over the people, this hypothesis is a gift from heaven. They're not trying to restrict our freedom because they're control freaks--no, they're doing it to save the earth! Keep in mind that politicians decide which research gets funded--so any researcher who wants funding throws in something about "anthropogenic global warming" even if their research has nothing to do with climate change. It's a completely different issue.

30 posted on 06/03/2012 4:48:00 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
It's a completely different issue.

You couldn't be more wrong. I read your comment above and the similarities leap off the page. Scientists who want funding have to toe the proper line. Oppose global warming? No money for you. Oppose Evolution? No money for you.

Science has demonstrated micro-evolution -- genetic change cannot be argued against. This has led to scientific advances. Great. The concept that all life has a common ancestor? This is not proven. Just like global warming is not proven.

There are cultural and political reasons why Evolution is pushed by certain people beyond the field of science. The reasons have to do with domination of people, and the imposition of control over free men and women with a Political Elite as the only law that must be obeyed. A higher law gets in the way -- but Evolution says we don't need any higher law: Men can handle everything and anything. Evolution is about socialism just as much as global warming is.

Some of us see this. You do not. If you cannot step away from the belief in macro-evolution, fine -- let's say for a moment that it is all true. You should be willing to aknowledge that in terms of funding and in terms of "political usefulness" for the Socialists, both Evolution and Global Warming are equally useful. You might want to say one is true and one is false -- but the people pushing these concepts don't care about Truth: they care about expediency. The Theory of Evolution is very expedient if you want to impose a secular, materialist, socialist society on mankind.

31 posted on 06/03/2012 6:02:42 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Like Emmett Till, Trayvon Martin has become simply a stick with which to beat Whites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Like Einstein, Newton, Da Vinci and Galileo, great minds know sans non-temporal intelligent design all science never was and scientists never are.


32 posted on 06/03/2012 6:28:49 AM PDT by Happy Rain ("Political Correctness forces people to say one thing and vote another.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
There is a HUGE difference between scientists tossing some throw-away phrase about how their research shows something about man-made global warming in order to get funding, and scientists actually using a scientific principle to advance their knowledge. No, I'm not surprised that no one gets funding unless they acknowledge the role of evolution in biology; there *is* a requirement for funding requests to be based in sound science. I don't expect that many scientists who deny the role of gravity in planetary dynamics get much funding, either.

You do realize, don't you, that "micro-evolution" is not a scientific concept? And it also is not a Biblical concept? It has every appearance of being invented by young-earth creationist charlatans (YECCs) to try to convince people they aren't liars when they tell them that the evidence of evolution that is all around us isn't real.

So, you personally are unaware of the evidence for a common ancestor. You do realize that just because you, personally, don't know something doesn't mean the knowledge doesn't exist, don't you? In fact, everything you could possibly want to know about common ancestry, and how we determine it, is probably right there on Google (search "common ancestry"). That is, if you have a genuine desire to learn about it.

One last thing: you might want to consider where you got the idea that scientists are trying to eliminate religion. I highly suspect it was from YECCs--they make that claim frequently. If they can't convince people that scientists are "out to get them", then people won't give them as much money.

33 posted on 06/03/2012 10:19:13 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
You do realize that just because you, personally, don't know something doesn't mean the knowledge doesn't exist, don't you?

Yup. You've hit it on the head. That's my entire argument summed up in one sentence. To re-state it: "My brain isn't big enough to understand Evolution, therefore Evolution isn't true." That's precisely what I'm saying.
[/HEAVY sarcasm]

You really wish people argued with you at that level, don't you? I actually understand a fair amount about science. I could make a case in favor of Evolution if I wanted too -- but I wouldn't believe it. The point is: I understand your side of the debate. However, it is pretty obvious to me that you do not have an understanding of the non-Evolution side of the debate. All you have is scorn and contempt. You do not undertand your opponent -- you do not want to understand your opponent -- and so you make ineffectual arguments.

34 posted on 06/03/2012 10:32:58 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Like Emmett Till, Trayvon Martin has become simply a stick with which to beat Whites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: microgood
I think a better analogy would be the difference between you child being born with a few less hairs than their parents versus being born with fully functional wings. I know evolutionists would argue the wing slowly develops over millions of years so would they just be lumps for a while, and then one day they are actually functional.

Of course we have all sorts of species with body parts which obviously do not work now but will be useful in a few million years.

Not at all. The evolutionary view is that the various body parts had other functions before they had the functions they have now. Or that the functions and shapes of the body parts changed together.

A vertebrate's wing is an arm that is specialized for flight. Before it became specialized for flight, it was specialized for gliding. Before gliding, the animal jumped--obviously, certain arm shapes would be better than others for jumping, and the animals having those arm shapes would be better suited for jumping than animals with different arm shapes. And so on and so on. There are plenty of examples of animals with arms that are at different points along the way to becoming fully functional wings.

35 posted on 06/03/2012 11:55:18 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
certain arm shapes would be better than others for jumping, and the animals having those arm shapes would be better suited for jumping than animals with different arm shapes.

Kangaroos?

36 posted on 06/03/2012 2:57:12 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Obama needs more time. After all -- Rome wasn't burned in a day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Gallup is a little off the mark.

Actually, more accurate and comprehensive polls show 68% are full creationists, and another 13% are weak creationists that believe that evolution had a part in it.


37 posted on 06/03/2012 3:07:23 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Yup. You've hit it on the head. That's my entire argument summed up in one sentence. To re-state it: "My brain isn't big enough to understand Evolution, therefore Evolution isn't true." That's precisely what I'm saying. [/HEAVY sarcasm]

I'll be honest: every time I see some young-earth creationist (YEC) spout some claim that evolution isn't "proven", I cringe. I'd expect to see those kinds of claims at some anti-Christian parody site, where the goal is to make Christians look as stupid as possible. There are plenty of websites like that out there--the last thing *I* want to do is give them more material to mock us with.

When I see that kind of claim repeated uncritically, it tells me that the person repeating it saw it at some anti-science YEC website (or book, video, whatever), and didn't bother to fact check. While I don't necessarily expect people without a scientific education to be able to read original research reports, countless articles and books about evolution written for laypersons are available, and natural history museums are plentiful. If you don't understand evolution, or you are unaware of the vast amount of evidence for it, it is not because there is no evidence--it's because you refuse to see it.

You really wish people argued with you at that level, don't you? I actually understand a fair amount about science. I could make a case in favor of Evolution if I wanted too -- but I wouldn't believe it. The point is: I understand your side of the debate. However, it is pretty obvious to me that you do not have an understanding of the non-Evolution side of the debate. All you have is scorn and contempt. You do not undertand your opponent -- you do not want to understand your opponent -- and so you make ineffectual arguments.

No, what I really wish is that everyone who's bought into the notion that you either believe science, or you believe religion would realize that it's not an either-or proposition. Science and religion have different, mostly non-overlapping, roles in society. There is no reason that a Christian can't be a scientist, or that a scientist can't be a Christian (and most scientists I've met *are* people of faith). As long as YEC charlatans keep evoking susceptible people's emotions and pushing anti-science for self-gain, no one wins. Kids turn away from science because they believe they'll go to hell if they study it. Kids turn away from religion because it's nearly impossible to deny mountains of scientific evidence on the flimsy excuse that it's not in the Bible. Meanwhile, the US is dropping further behind in the areas of science and mathematics--and the number of Christians and people of any faith is dropping, as well. These are not good trends!

BTW, I *do* understand my opponent. YECs are emotion based--scientists are logic based. I'm well aware that logic does not convince emotional people, but I'll keep trying.

38 posted on 06/03/2012 7:16:51 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
A vertebrate's wing is an arm that is specialized for flight. Before it became specialized for flight, it was specialized for gliding. Before gliding, the animal jumped--obviously, certain arm shapes would be better than others for jumping, and the animals having those arm shapes would be better suited for jumping than animals with different arm shapes. And so on and so on. There are plenty of examples of animals with arms that are at different points along the way to becoming fully functional wings.

And this is the stunning evidence and logic of evolutionists. How can anyone deny this kind of proof?/sarc I could write something as factual, logical and convincing about a tornado, a junkyard and a 747 but in either case its just a made up story with no evidence. If only cells were just full of mush, evolution would be so much easier to believe.

39 posted on 06/05/2012 5:19:18 PM PDT by Tramonto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Tramonto
And this is the stunning evidence and logic of evolutionists. How can anyone deny this kind of proof?/sarc I could write something as factual, logical and convincing about a tornado, a junkyard and a 747 but in either case its just a made up story with no evidence. If only cells were just full of mush, evolution would be so much easier to believe.

Indeed. How *can* anyone deny the existence of countless fossils, the fossil and geological records which tell a story of gradual change over time, or the phylogenetic method of DNA analysis that confirms all of the evidence that thousands of scientists for generations have been collecting?

But don't tell me, let me guess--you're hoping to see your post repeated on some anti-Christian website. *I* wouldn't want to give them more material to bash Christians with, but I guess that's just me.

40 posted on 06/06/2012 3:37:26 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

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