Evolution Roll Call
 

I started this thread because I am curious as to how many of our forum members believe in evolution as opposed to creation.

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

I believe in a literal Adam and Eve who were created 12-20 thousand years ago, but I also believe that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old and that our Earth is 4.5 billion and currently orbiting a 2nd generation star.

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

Did you vote?

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

Yes, they teach that the earth is 4.54 billion years old; however, they fail to explain why they couldn't find the several feet of space dust that was supposed to be on the moon when they landed there in 1969. The accumulation of space dust was only a few centemeters; why do you suppose that is?

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

I believe a little differant I suppose,I saw something is Gen 1:20 that says ; And God said let the waters bring forth abundantlythe moving creature that hath life and the fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. If you take it literaly ,it sounds like what evelutionist say except they leave out God.
If you look at the next verse it gives God the credit for the opperation of the above verse.So I believe that Gen 1:20 give us an expaination of how God created the Wales and fish and fowl.

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

I do believe that God created the heavens and the earth, but I also do not have a problem with evolution in certain forms. I think we do have proof of the laws of evolution or adaptation in animal life. I do not think man evolved from a monkey or any other form.

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

I believe that Genesis is most likely a true story. However, I think we miss the point if we assume its literal history and leave it at that. I once spoke to a rabbi about Genesis and he illustrated to me that he believed that it was what he called an, “anointed myth”. He defined “myth” as being a fictitious tale written to illustrate an underlying moral point or truth. For example, the story of the little boy who cried wolf; this story is a fairytale, a “myth”, if you will. There never was a real little boy or a real wolf. However, the moral of the story is a truth for all time. Even today we know what it means to, “cry wolf”, and the implications of loosing one’s creditability. The rabbi explained to me that the Genesis story is a bit different though. Its “anointed” meaning that this story was inspired by the very Spirit of God. The rabbi continued by saying that he didn’t believe that there had to be a literal real week of creation or a literal or real Adam and Eve. He continued by illustrating that the point of Genesis is that God made all things. And the story of Adam and Eve teaches us more about ourselves as imperfect creatures than it does history. In Adam and Eve…we see ourselves. We’ve all been in a place where things were well and have given into temptation. We’ve all tempted others to partake also. We’ve all felt the sting of shame and we’ve all felt God’s rejection. However, we’ve also felt God’s grace and mercy in the wake of our sin’s consequences. In Adam and Eve perhaps we don’t so much as see history…we see ourselves.

The rabbi in question believes in evolution as taught by science and denies that Adam and Eve actually existed. But he believes that the Genesis story is from God and teaches us deep spiritual truths. I don’t know if I’d go that far. But I will say this…we miss a lot, perhaps the entire point of the story, if we focus on it’s literal truth and loose sight of what it’s actually teaching us about God and ourselves.

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

I think there are real problems with carbon dating- I do not think the earth is as old as they purport it to be. But I do think it is older than 6000 years.

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

Because of the half life of carbon-14 (between 5 and 6 thousand years) it can only reliably predict ages to about 30 thousand years (maybe a bit more). It is NOT a long term dating method.

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

Good point ,Moses got the reevelation while on the mount and it says he saw the hinder parts of God,I think the hinder parts are History....ie what God did.Sort of like a reverse Revelation. John saw into the future and Moses saw into the past.Just my opinion or the way I see it.

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

Just now. Poll wasn't there yet, when I posted, I think.

I picked 'other'. I believe evolution happens and it might be God's method of creating. So it's option 3 and a possible option 2, but not sure. No way of knowing, seems to me.

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

Very interesting.

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

For me the idea of "anointed myth" appears to water down the Scripture on the surface. However, it is also very powerful in that no matter what science claims, discovers, or proves... a divine myth would still teach absolute truths given by God.

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

I did a research paper on evolution and my professor gave me a perfect score. I dedicate this to each of you.

Of the hundreds and perhaps thousands of subjects, one of the most controversial subjects today involves the science of evolution and the science of creation. The subjects of evolution and creation have been a point of contention between secular and religious scientists for more than 80 years now. Evolution seems to have some valid arguments which support its claim; in light of this fact, one must consider how the arguments of creation could stack up against evolution itself. Maybe one should consider evolution a fallacy because there are no concrete arguments which support the theory of evolution.
The field of science only recognizes one, maybe two views of how everything came into existence; namely, evolution and perhaps some will accept creation as a viable answer. If there are any other scientific views then they are not widely known, but at least most people are aware of the view of “creation”. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (2008), the definition of “science” states: “A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain”. In accordance with this definition neither evolution nor creation can be considered science because they do not follow the rules of being observable; however, we can use logic coupled with critical thinking to determine which argument makes better sense.
Evolution is being taught in our public schools on the basis of fact; however, even according to Moehlenpah (1998) who holds a Doctorate in Science explains that “both evolution and creation are theories of science which cannot be proven by observation”. So the question remains; how does one know which of the two has occurred? We must realize whether we are proponents of evolution or proponents of creation that both of these views are a matter of faith. Therefore, we must ask ourselves which of the two makes more logical sense. In an article taken from his book Teaching Creation Science in Public Schools, Gish (1995) gives a logical explanation concerning the similarities of both scientific viewpoints of creation and evolution. He also explains that neither viewpoint can be observed, so the approach is that of faith. In addition, Gish further states that both events happened only once, so it is impossible to conclude from observation which of the two has occurred. Since observations of the two events are impossible to observe, we must base our “faith” on one of the two possibilities. One of the main arguments for teaching evolution only is based upon the idea that creation is too much of a religious view and as religion goes, there must be a separation of church and state. Let us take into account that it is God that evolutionists want to take out of school and not so much as religion itself. However, as was previously stated, evolution is just as much of a religious view as creation because one must believe without observation that evolution has taken place.

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

continued

In his understanding of the evolutionary process, Moehlenpah (1998) states: “The twin pillars of evolutionary thought are time and chance”. He further states that “Mathematical probabilities practically, if not totally, destroy pillar number one; therefore, time must be the hero of the plot”. Moehlenpah argues that mathematically it is impossible for some kind of “spontaneous” event to happen without the handiwork of a creator. The chance of spontaneous life to form is one in 10 by the 40,000th power. By these probabilities, one would have a better chance to get 10 straight flushes with a poker hand in Vegas.
Another point to consider with the evolutionary pillars of “time and chance”, we must look into the dating methods of today to find out how old a geological or biological object may be. Carbon dating is what is used today to find the age of an animal or a plant that has died. Taking this carbon dating method into consideration, one “must” know how much carbon existed at the time an animal has died, or how much carbon existed when a fossil was formed. In understanding the basic concept of how much carbon was in the Earth’s atmosphere at the time of an animal’s existence, we must also ask ourselves, ‘How is it possible to know how much carbon was around several thousands of years ago?’ As was stated before, this is perhaps a disillusioned argument that cannot possibly be observed as a viable science when thousands of years have passed; however, carbon dating is viable within the time observed making it an acceptable use for science of today.
Understanding that carbon dating is used solely for the purpose of biology, let us look into how we date geological materials. Dating rocks and fossils is used mainly by the potassium-argon method. This method factors quantities of argon found within each rock that surrounds the fossil, and determines how the geological clock is set by the escaping element known as argon. This method of dating is based upon numerous assumptions. The main assumption is that evolutionary science already assumes the Earth (based upon unobservable science) is 4.55 billion years old. Who is going to argue against a society that has wholeheartedly embraced evolution and the assumption that the earth is billions of years old?
Getting more into the arguments that describe differences between evolution and creation, one could understand the weak existence of the evolutionary argument. One of those arguments involves the fossil records which show a change in the way that mammals have evolved over the period of millions of years. This argument involves a lack of proof in today’s world, especially when there is the lack of inter-existent animals between those that exist today. The evolutionists might argue that they were a process of elimination because they could not adapt in today’s world; however, the creationist will argue that the monkey should not be in existence today according to that same argument. A question comes to mind when considering why a simple chimpanzee is capable of living through the process of adaptation through natural selection when the Neanderthal is not. This kind of reasoning must be addressed in order for conclusive decisions to be made in favor of the evolutionary process.
According to Moehlenpah (1998), the following chart shows a population growth rate of less than ½ percent that doubles every 150 years from 2500 B.C.:
Times doubled since 2500 B.C.Population.
0
1 doubling
2 doublings
3 doublings
4 doublings
5 doublings
6 doublings
7 doublings
8 doublings
9 doublings
10 doublings
11 doublings
12 doublings
13 doublings
14 doublings
15 doublings
16 doublings
17 doublings
18 doublings
19 doublings
20 doublings
21 doublings
22 doublings
23 doublings
24 doublings
25 doublings
26 doublings
27 doublings
28 doublings
29 doublings
30 doublings
Eight people
Sixteen people
Thirty two people
Sixty four people
One hundred twenty eight people
Two hundred fifty six people
Five hundred twelve people
One thousand twenty four people
Two thousand forty eight people
Four thousand ninety six people
Eight thousand one hundred ninety two people
16,384 people
32,768 people
65,536 people
131,072 people
262,144 people
524,288 people
1,048,576 people
2,097,152 people
4,194,304 people
8,388,608 people
16,777,216 people
33,554,432 people
67,108,864 people
134 million people
268 million people
536 million people
1.2 billion people
2.4 billion people
4.8 billion people
9.6 billion people
__________________

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

continued

This is only an illustration which uses a modest population growth rate of ½ percent; however, the current growth rate is at 2%. Taking this chart into consideration, we are currently on the last doubling at the year 2000. Clearly, we do not have the population of 9.6 billion people but we are looking at a population of 6.5 billion. Could we imagine what kind of growth we would have if man started much earlier than 2500 B.C.? If the growth would continue at ½ percent and double at the same pace of 150 years, then at 60 doublings there would be approximately 10 billion billion people on the earth today. That means there would be no space to populate because logic would tell us that we would all be crushed under the weight of other people. We should also understand that there would not be any food to grow or animals to eat because of the lack of space to support these resources. The question again remains, ‘How could time and chance be the pillar of evolutionary thought when the logic of population growth will not support that pillar?’
In a statement concerning scientists, Ruse (2002) makes the information known that creationists have grown within the ranks of science and individuals of distinction; however, he points out that those biologists are not a part of the group of naysayers concerning the process or theory of evolution. Even Colby (1997) in his article “Introduction to Evolutionary Biology” declares that evolutionary biology is a theory. Colby also states that creationists have yet to offer any scientific evidences or testing to support their claims. Even though claims and evidences have been offered by evolutionists, those claims are easily refuted when one understands the weaknesses of those arguments. The fact that creationists do not seem to offer any substantial evidences could be easily described by the fact that humanity cannot duplicate what a creator can. A premise would be that humanity has to have an answer for everything and if enough information is not provided to fill in the blanks, humanity seems all too eager to make things up to fill in those proverbial blanks. Can humanity create a sun? Can humanity duplicate a vast solar system? This argument seems dishonest by those who are proponents of evolution to think that creationists can offer a scientific view other than creation itself.
One may ask whether creationist thinking is biased or not. For the most part, creation science is biased; however, we must understand that evolutionary science is just as biased. Biases aside, what matters most is which of the two biases is easier to believe in. At the very least, it is better to agree with a bias which supports a better argument based upon logic rather than theories alone. Would it be much simpler to have faith in a God that created the Earth? Or, would it be simpler to have faith in the notion that time and chance made a complex system full of life? How did the smallest particle known as an atom come into existence? Did the atom evolve from nothing? Or did an atom come into existence through a creator? These are questions we must honestly answer within ourselves.
In light of the arguments discussed above, it is clear that one must always make a decision based upon those facts. If we are honest and use logic and critical thinking skills, we can just as easily deduce the facts to point the way of creation as the only answer. However, as was already stated, creation also lacks observable science. The question we should ask ourselves is what we will do with these facts. An issue should be challenged within ourselves to find out whether we have been taught all that is factual, or is what we believe, information that is faith based one way or the other.
__________________

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

continued

Oxford English Dictionary (2008) Definition of “Science”. Retrieved July 5, 2008 from the University Library.
Gish, Duane T. Ph.D. (1995) Scientific Creationism Should be Taught in Science Classrooms. Article excerpted from “Teaching Creation Science in Public Schools”. Retrieved June 1, 2008 from the University Library.
Ruse, Michael (2002) New Creationists and their Discredited Arguments. Article. Retrieved June 1, 2008 from the University Library.
Moehlenpah, Arlo E. D.Sc. (1998) Creation versus Evolution: Scientific and Religious Considerations.
Colby, Chris (1997) Introduction to Evolutionary Biology. Article. Retrieved June 26, 2008 from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

WOW

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

I realize that no one may actually listen but here is just one episode of a weekly podcast I listen too. It is nearly two hours long, but at least you can save it and listen to it at will.

http://randyandgail.com/cup20081202.mp3

Warning!
The above program represents a very intellectually honest viewpoint on Creationism and science and does not seek to fit every scientific discovery into a preset belief system.

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

Was it too long? Sorry, it was a research paper that had to be substantive.

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

I don't think survival of the fittest and adaptibility to the environment can account for things like the evolution of a heart, blood, a brain, or the ability to think, from organisms without those things. I don't think those things could have developed from mutations either.

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

Perhaps God used evolution to create.
It says "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground" How long did He take "forming" man? It does not say. It just says what he did and what He used, not how long it took.

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

My view was only represented as other in your list. I believe in creation but not in 6 literal days. In fact, the basis for our understanding of time (Sun/Moon) does not even appear in the creation story until "day" 4. I do believe in adaptation and survival of the fittest but not in any way that would explain the origin of life.

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

Not at all. Excellent post, and I appreciate you for posting it here.

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

I believe the 7 day account was the 7 days that God revealed the beforehand to Moses.

Remember God walked past Moses and only showed him his hinder parts.

Therefore Moses was shown the backside of time.

The evening and the morning were the first day of this account to Moses.

Then on the 78th day of the this accounting to Moses God rested and the beforehand story was told.

The amount of time that could be measured within those days of accounting belong only in the knowledge of God.

We however have unearthed many of the fossils from time periods gone by..

Why are so many of these fossils being unearthed today?

Because in generations past they did not believe there was anything out there...

Who knows it is not about what happened before the Cross that counts it is what happend after the cross.

That goes for history and our own lives...

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

Cause somebody vacumed a couple hundred years back?

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

I agree!
I believe that science attempts to explain how.
The Bible explains who.

Science cannot explain exactly how modern man arrived on the scene. We often hear of "the missing link".

I believe God is that link, since science will not acknowledge God, they miss the answer.

We had a pretty good discussion on this here.
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ead.php?t=9592

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

No not at all I was just amazed at it.Alot of it was very wise.

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

True ,very true.

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

I believe that God created the world in 6 days just like the Bible says he did.

I don't believe those days are literal 24 hour periods. I believe they are a metaphorical representation of events that occurred over a period of 13-odd billion years.

If anyone needs a label... progressive creationist fits. To anyone that takes that to label me "evolutionist" ... wrong label.

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

The cosmic dust argument is based on a wildly inaccurate equation from 1960.

The reality is the accumulation of dust for 4.6 billion years would only be a few cm, as was found.

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

So, you believe that some of the Bible is inaccurate then. (Not critisizing, just pointing out the obvious!)

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

I am a "Creationist".

I also believe in adaptations, natural selection, and limited evolution.

We did not evolve from monkeys, apes or amoebae.

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

I read where someone considered the book of Job something like that. He says "As satisfying as the book of Job has been to people over the ages, I have to say I find it supremely dissatisfying. If God tortures, maims, and murders people just to see how they will react-to see if they will not blame him, when in fact he is to blame-then this does not seem to me to be a God worthy of worship. Worthy of fear, yes. Of praise, no."

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

I think the earth is more than 6000 years old also.

I have no clue how many millions or billions of years it has, but the 6000 year argument does not hold water.

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

Sounds like me, but I don't remember saying it...check with Timmy or Brad Murphy. :D

Seriously though, that is a very good example on why I have many issues with the Bible, that seem almost impossible to reconcile. To be honest, of late I have just decided to "let it go" so to speak. If God wants me to understand the things that confuse me, and to know with confidence the things that I doubt, then he will show me in His own time. In the meantime, I am content to just abide...

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

:lol I was wondering if it was you or Brad!

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

I don't go so far as to describe Genesis as a "myth" anointed or otherwise. I believe it is a simplified representation of what occurred on a larger scale and a longer time period.

It was given to Moses in a fashion that he, and his primary audience (the people of Israel, could digest the truth of creation.

Realize that the genesis creation account does not appear in any ancient culture. Genesis is the first time. Moses, educated n Pharaoh's household, would have learned the earth is on the back of a really big turtle, and whole bunch of other nonsense.

The creation account in Genesis is nothing more than the creative truth simplified for minds that were incapable of understanding what we understand because of the body of knowledge available to us.

Moses had no way of conceiving that the books he penned would be debated over 3500 years after his death.

He had no way of conceiving the concept of a million years, much less billions of years.

The account in genesis is no less true because it is simplified. 1+2=3 is mathematic truth. So is a Fourier Transform. Go explain that to your five year old.

God is a nice God. He represents himself to folks in a way they can understand, he did it with Moses and his people who didn't know anything about cosmology, the fossil record or the geological column.

And he does it for us today.

Re: Evolution Roll Call
 

I do beleive in Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

So yes I do beleive in creation.

I also beleive in evolution. Examples, Man kind has been getting smarter and smarter. Some fish have evolved.

I also beleive that it is God that allows evolution to take place.