Have at it.
We can argue all day but the fact is you are on the wrong side of scientific opinion.
Genesis 8:22 ESV
While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”
So now you speak for gods will????
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.
You have not a shred of actual evidence of climate change or global warming other than what a small group of well paid people tell you. Yet I doubt there are billions of research dollars for disproving God, yet Harry rejects the vast majority of scientific opinion
When you call people anti science and deniers, you invite this type of scrutiny.
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?
95% plus don't believe the biblical account of the bible. No rib of Adam no garden of Eden sorry Harry.
The poll stands
So with that being said, you either reject the bible or science which is it?
Ok Harry, if you insist, lets just limit the definition to a divine being creating the earth and stars as well as man as d beast. That's my definition nice try, so by your own admission it's 5%.
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.
Ok Harry, if you insist, lets just limit the definition to a divine being creating the earth and stars as well as man as d beast.
And led by a guy that looked like Ben Cartwright.
519 Juliana St. , Parkersburg, WV 26101 | 304-485-1891