Gallup Poll: 4 in 10 believe man created by God 10,000 years ago

**richmondesi** · 01-01-2011, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by TheMetatron

That spelling doesn't appear in my unabridged. Did you mean to spell it "submission"?

Yes, it's "submission". Also, "subjecting" as Alex used it (again it's rare, but accurate) means "to present for consideration; submit". I wouldn't exactly consider it any more forceful than "submission" which reminds me of MMA holds...

**xman** · 01-01-2011, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by TheMetatron

That spelling doesn't appear in my unabridged. Did you mean to spell it "submission"?

Yes, thank-you.

Originally Posted by richmondesi

Yes, it's "submission". Also, "subjecting" as Alex used it (again it's rare, but accurate) means "to present for consideration; submit". I wouldn't exactly consider it any more forceful than "submission" which reminds me of MMA holds...

From my Thesaurus;

subjection
noun
subjugation, domination, oppression, mastery, repression, suppression.

**richmondesi** · 01-01-2011, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by xman

From my Thesaurus;

subjection
noun
subjugation, domination, oppression, mastery, repression, suppression.

That's why you don't use a thesaurus to define words

subject:

"submit: refer for judgment or consideration; "The lawyers submitted the material to the court"
rare to present for consideration; submit

In my thesaurus, "submission" has "subjection" as an option. Subject is listed as well under submit...

**markevens** · 01-02-2011, 12:30 AM

Creationism has no evidence credible in the scientific community. Creationism and/or intelligent design are not science and do not belong in any science class.

With the USA's despicably poor levels of public education, this poll is as unsurprising as it is sad.

**mhailey** · 01-02-2011, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by markevens

Creationism has no evidence credible in the scientific community. Creationism and/or intelligent design are not science and do not belong in any science class.

With the USA's despicably poor levels of public education, this poll is as unsurprising as it is sad.

Evolution as a means of creation is totally unsupported as well.

I'm not saying that evolution does not exist, but there is no evidence of "evolution as a means of creation."

There has never been one documented event of life coming from non-life. To belive that life just somehow began, without any intervention from some form of life is taking "faith" to a new level. To do so is throwing out every observed event of life coming into this world, and assert that while it has never happened before, life just somehow "popped" into existence.

Even Richard Dawkins admits this:

YouTube - Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design

**JMS** · 01-02-2011, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by mhailey

Evolution as a means of creation is totally unsupported as well.

I'm not saying that evolution does not exist, but there is no evidence of "evolution as a means of creation."

There has never been one documented event of life coming from non-life. To belive that life just somehow began, without any intervention from some form of life is taking "faith" to a new level. To do so is throwing out every observed event of life coming into this world, and assert that while it has never happened before, life just somehow "popped" into existence.

Even Richard Dawkins admits this:

YouTube - Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design

Matt

**mhailey** · 01-02-2011, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by JMS

Matt, while I am on your side on this your post begs the question: Where did God come from?

My point was to dispell this issue that "intelligent design" is utterly unacademic and has no place in science.

In the end, whether you belive that life simply "popped" into existence as the "educated" amoung us belive, or you belive that God created life, you must do so on faith. And I would assert that to belive that life simply "popped" into existence takes greater faith than those that assert the position of inteligent design or creation.

**JMS** · 01-02-2011, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by mhailey

My point was to dispell this issue that "intelligent design" is utterly unacademic and has no place in science.

In the end, whether you belive that life simply "popped" into existence as the "educated" amoung us belive, or you belive that God created life, you must do so on faith. And I would assert that to belive that life simply "popped" into existence takes greater faith than those that assert the position of inteligent design or creation.

....Agreed

**northpaw** · 01-02-2011, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by mhailey

there is no evidence of "evolution as a means of creation."

Evolution addresses how species change over time -- not how the first organisms arose. It certainly explains the "creation" of modern species (e.g. humans), but not the creation of life.

In any event, the Gallup poll was mentioned in the OP with regard to the fact that 40% of the respondents believed "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so". This is the "Strict Creationism" referenced in the article's title, and it's what is entirely at odds with evolution (and science in general).

**Sailor** · 01-02-2011, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by mhailey

My point was to dispell this issue that "intelligent design" is utterly unacademic and has no place in science.

In the end, whether you belive that life simply "popped" into existence as the "educated" amoung us belive, or you belive that God created life, you must do so on faith. And I would assert that to belive that life simply "popped" into existence takes greater faith than those that assert the position of inteligent design or creation.

The fact that science hasn't this far been able to prove how life was actually started leaves no room for beliefs of any kind. There are only several theories to study and test and maybe science will some day show us how it happened (this is a question of believe of course

. This far science has been always able to do so. It is mostly religions that are so quick to offer the God of their choice as an explanation when there is something we don't really know yet. I do not think that science would try to show that life just popps here and there. Not by itself or snapping of somebodys fingers.

Now science will not include/exclude any divine interventions unless there are facts that such thing exists. This far there hasn't been need to do so. Now believing something we don't physically know is ok of course if it makes life better, but with the contest of the OP teaching something as a truth when there really is no any fact to support such thing is, how to say, not so good idea.

This is a bit confusing as in my language there are different verb for believing something that can be physically explained (my car, public transport or my wife etc) and different for believing something divine or supernatural. In my point of the view this conversation has been very much like that (with all respects not you but in general)

Thread: Gallup Poll: 4 in 10 believe man created by God 10,000 years ago

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

The Following User Says Thank You to markevens For This Useful Post:

Posting Permissions