Have at it.
"The way our politics are, we are probably all descendants of Baltar."
LOL! I know right?
"We can argue all day but the fact is you are on the wrong side of scientific opinion."
True, but not by far. I believe God had a hand in creation. According to the Gallup poll you cited, 55% of scientists believe God had no hand and 45% believe, as do I, that God had a hand.
Did you even read the poll you cited?
"So now you speak for gods will????"
Nope. You can read Romans 1:20 in any Christian Bible.
"While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”
Quite true. And as far as I know, no climate scientist has said these things would cease.
"You seem to be critical because a person is leaning on faith over science on this topic."
Actually, Kendall, you're right. Tiredofit's argument is silly. He accuses me of hypocrisy because he imagines I accept one body of science and reject another.
He's silly for 2 reasons. First, he's wrong. I accept both bodies of science.
Second, notice how he won't express what HE believes. He can't. If he adopts the absolutist position he demands of me, he either shows himself to be the hypocrite he accuses me of (by accepting the geological record in the creation instance and rejecting climate science) or enhances the case that he denies science (by rejecting both the climate science and the geologic record).
Let me be clear--I'm not labeling him. His own words and deeds will show who he is.
Myth wrote, "And the path to knowing more is science."
Maybe not the only path, but it is certainly a path God expects us to take.
And by the way, the Bible encourages us to accept observable science. Romans 1:20 says "...God's eternal power and divine nature...can be understood by what has been made."
In other words, the fossil and geologic record are important because they show God's characteristics.
So I believe the earthly record and the Biblical account can be reconciled. I base this belief on the Bible.
"So with that being said, you either reject the bible or science which is it?"
I accept both. And if you read the Gallup poll you yourself cited, you will find that 40% of scientists also accept both.
I cited one way earlier. But like I said before, I'm not enslaved to any particular view on this. It's not that important.
Tired, why are you taking this absolutist approach?
Are you under the odd idea that if someone doesn't trust the science on one thing, then everything else they regard with science is false? That would be silly.
You look at the argument for what it is and judge it with the facts avaialable to reach a conclusion.
But let's look at it another way. You seem to be critical because a person is leaning on faith over science on this topic. But isn't true that you are leaning faith instead of science at the Climate Change topic?
So what's the difference?
So most people are not Literalists, what is the problem with that?
And finally, 55% of scientists believe "God had no part in the process."
Is that what you call a consensus? Remember, we're using YOUR sources and YOUR definition.
Now let's look at the results of the 3 categories the Gallup poll used.
Creationists believe "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." That group was 5%.
"Theistic evolutionists" believe "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation." That group, which fits your definition, was 40%. Incidentally, I fall in this group.
So 40+5, or 45%, of scientists fit your definition.
According to the1991 Gallup poll you cited, 45% of scientists subscribe to the definition of creationism you gave. You said 5%, but the actual number is 45% who believe in your definition of creationism, which is "a divine being created...man..."
ht tp://w ww.religioustolerance.o rg/ev_publia.htm
I obtained this link by googling the quote you plagiarized, finding the original source (ht tp://w ww.talkorigins.or g/indexcc/CA/CA111.html), then following a link to the Gallup poll in the bibliography.
"Heck maybe thousands of years ago a Colonial Fleet.."
The way our politics are, we are probably all decendants of Baltar.
And led by a guy that looked like Ben Cartwright.
Heck maybe thousands of years ago a Colonial Fleet came to the end of a long cosmic journey headed by a Battlestar and colonized this planet?
LOL Kendall will be the only one that knows what I am talking about there.
Then again maybe what created us is nothing more than another species that seeded life on this planet as they traveled the cosmos.
I can't remember that details but I think it was the Aztecs or Incas who knew about a star system that can not be seen without a telescope. Yet they knew its exact place in the nighttime sky.
Not to mention their amazing knowledge of other astronomical things.
Truthfully there may be a god but I just don't see how we could even come close to know what it truthfully is. We may never. I'm ok with that.
And if there is a god just think for a bit on the level of intelligence and power it would take to make all of this.
When I consider that and I look at all the "rules" laid down supposedly by god I just can't get past that the majority of it is absolutely useless to such a thing or being.
Some of it is so petty and obviously born of fear and the lack of understanding of the universe we inhabit.
This is how I look at it.
Out of the billions of stars there is a very very high probability that there is life out there somewhere. Some of that life could very well be sentient like us. And like us I am sure they have stories of where they came from and who or what created them.
If that is a fact who would be right? Us or them?
Im betting neither. I think that in our case at least we are still a very ignorant species. We know a lot...but not all of it.
And the path to knowing more is science. It can explain what we see around us.
519 Juliana St. , Parkersburg, WV 26101 | 304-485-1891