Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was the developing science of geology that provided the kind of time which evolution would demand. Darwin traveled with a copy of the works of of Charles Lyell, the godfather of the science of geology. Without the time frame for the age of the earth as Lyell estimated, Darwin himself (IIRC my reading) admitted that his own "theory" of evolution would have been difficult to accept in his own mind.
As an aside, anyone curious about geology will find John McPhee's Annals of the Former World is a fascinating read. Difficult (for me, anyway) but fascinating.
Not sure exactly what an 'open theist' is, but, I was only making a tongue-in-cheek statement .... since so many on this forum seem to conclude that man, not God, is in control.
The earth's age point is that many seem to believe that they have 'exposed' some contradiction or error in the Bible ... because they have put their little calculators to work on the given ages of ancient Bible figures --- and discovered that the Bible says "the world is only 6000 years old" (which, of course, it does not).
The issue of sin from the beginning, has always been man, trying to be God ... whether deciding they would not die if they ate the fruit, to building the tower of Babel, to altars and sacrifices to false idols, to rejecting the Bible in the false belief that people have overcome God's inspiration or that 'they' have unearthed long-misunderstood 'contradictions.'
Everything you say here is so true...
Btw, an open theist believes it is possible that God doesn't know what choices people will make, but does know all the possibilities and their eventualities.
For myself, I believe in evolution. I acknowledge that there are problems with the general assumptions of evolution. IMHO, we do not have any understanding at all of the mechanisms of evolution. Natural selection is, in my opinion, NOT the mechanism of evolution because natural selection by itself does not lead to evolutionary change.
To take this a bit further, at the risk of obscurity, evolution isnt even deserving of the rank of theory, but rather remains in the realm of hypothesis. All evidence, while based on empiricism, cannot be duplicated by experiment, and therefore fails the scientific method requirement for becoming a theory.
We call it the "theory" of gravity because we can validate it by experiment, and have done so since the time of Galileo. But gravity is still a "theory" because we have no mechanism of action that "causes" gravity. Hence the search for the "graviton" particle.
So yes I agree that teaching evolution as fact is wrong. That's what happens when even scientists lose sight of the principals of science.
Whoa. You don't appear to understand what a Scientific Theory is, let alone evolution or gravity.
Nobody has answered the op's question... How many Evangelicals still believe in a young Earth? so here ya go
When asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings, between 40-50% of adults in the United States say they share the beliefs of young Earth creationism, depending on the poll. The percentage of believers decreases as the level of education increases—only 22% of respondents with postgraduate degrees believed compared with 47% of those with a high school education or less. Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nobody has answered the op's question... How many Evangelicals still believe in a young Earth? so here ya go
When asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings, between 40-50% of adults in the United States say they share the beliefs of young Earth creationism, depending on the poll. The percentage of believers decreases as the level of education increases—only 22% of respondents with postgraduate degrees believed compared with 47% of those with a high school education or less. Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It seems more and more Evangelicals are leaving room for the idea that the Earth isn't only six to ten thousand years old after all...even many who affirm this believe are not totally dogmatic about it, acknowledging the possibility. Do you think Young-Earth Creationists are on the decline, even within the most literal Christians?
This would seem to be prophecy for filled and only means Christs return is even closer.
OK I've done a bit of reading. I'll take the information you pointed me too under advisement. But other reading I have done still leads me to conclude that natural selection is not the mechanism of evolution, as I stated previously. I'm not sure that you understand my point.
One source I looked at (it may even have been yours) seems to say that "theory" explains laws of science or a set of facts. The example used was gravity, and there is Newtonian theory used to explain how gravity works and Einsteinian general relativity which explains it better.
Another (or maybe the same) source seems to say that scientific theories are used to make predictions.
So how does evolution theory make predictions, and how would we test if those predictions were to be accurate?
And show me one new species that is positively truly the result of natural selection.
Now you might convince me if you were to include genetic mutation as a component of evolution. You might even convince me that environmental duress might be a component. (Once upon a time I read or heard someplace that in an experiment someplace a pregnant rabbit gave birth to amphibious baby rabbits. Dont know if this was true or not. Dont remember where or when it may have happened. Once upon a time I read or heard of research showing that the a significant percentage of the population of Santa Monica, CA had teeth which if found in the ground would be identifiable as Neanderthal, which at the time would have been evidence that we are evolved from Neanderthals. That one came from one of the anthropologists in a lecture I attended while in college.)
But the small changes over long periods of time "theory" is not convincing enough to me.
OK I've done a bit of reading. I'll take the information you pointed me too under advisement. But other reading I have done still leads me to conclude that natural selection is not the mechanism of evolution, as I stated previously. I'm not sure that you understand my point.
One source I looked at (it may even have been yours) seems to say that "theory" explains laws of science or a set of facts. The example used was gravity, and there is Newtonian theory used to explain how gravity works and Einsteinian general relativity which explains it better.
Another (or maybe the same) source seems to say that scientific theories are used to make predictions.
So how does evolution theory make predictions, and how would we test if those predictions were to be accurate?
And show me one new species that is positively truly the result of natural selection.
Now you might convince me if you were to include genetic mutation as a component of evolution. You might even convince me that environmental duress might be a component. (Once upon a time I read or heard someplace that in an experiment someplace a pregnant rabbit gave birth to amphibious baby rabbits. Dont know if this was true or not. Dont remember where or when it may have happened. Once upon a time I read or heard of research showing that the a significant percentage of the population of Santa Monica, CA had teeth which if found in the ground would be identifiable as Neanderthal, which at the time would have been evidence that we are evolved from Neanderthals. That one came from one of the anthropologists in a lecture I attended while in college.)
But the small changes over long periods of time "theory" is not convincing enough to me.
The concept of small changes over long periods of time is proven science confirmed by genetic analysis....I don't understand why is it not convincing to you?
Biologists working with the most sophisticated genetic tools are demonstrating that natural selection plays a greater role in the evolution of genes than even most evolutionists had thought... Testing Natural Selection with Genetics: Scientific American
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
