4 in 10 Americans Believe God Created Earth 10,000 Years Ago

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Stormdancer777

There's a huge distinction which you are missing. The distinction is that legitimate scientists who follow one religion or another don't go into their lab with the answers from the Bible and work backwards trying to fit the data to validate the Bible. Francis Collins said that he sees god in his lab every day - but he's not looking to stamp out modern science in the process like Creationists. Just because a particular scientist is a devout Christian doesn't mean that he or she is required to skew the scientific evidence to prove a point. On the contrary, the scientists on your list understood what OBJECTIVE evidence is - if they didn't they would have never come up with reproducible results.

And although the majority of Nobel Prize winners may be Christian, this is a more significant statistic:

"Nobel Prizes have been awarded to over 850 individuals,[2] of whom at least 20% were Jews or of Jewish descent, although Jews comprise less than 0.2% of the world's population,[3] (or 1 in every 500 people). Overall, Jews have won a total of 41% of all the Nobel Prizes in economics, 28% of medicine, 26% of Physics, 19% of Chemistry, 13% of Literature and 9% of all peace awards.[4]"

There's no conflict between religion and science if you understand that one is a belief system which requires no proof while the other is an objective, inquiring system requiring proof and reproducibility.

The conflict comes when religion tries to force its unprovable beliefs into the natural world of science. That's the battle royale.

I'm assuming this is for me.

If Francis Collins sees god in all of his experiments, it is because he put his beliefs before the evidence. That means that he is bringing the bible into the lab and working backwards.

There were a lot of folks who were against Collin's appointment to the NIH. Mainly because his views were very unscientific. His creationist views were widely unknown until he got into the office. Here is an article from Sam Harris. www.samharris.org...

At least you admit there is no proof for belief in religion. But why would you believe in anything that you know doesn't have any data to back it up? That is the opposite of reasonable thinking and has no place in a lab.

It doesn't matter that some scientists believe in religion. Because none of them have ever proved that religion is viable. It only shows that some scientists believe in something for no good reason, which makes them bad scientists. Most of the world is religious so it should be no surprise that a majority of religious people win nobel prizes. The majority of people in American prisons are religious as well. What does that say? The same thing, that there are lots of religious people in America. So by default you will find them in the majority of lots of things.

a reply to: Woodcarver

I think you misunderstood my post. I used Francis Collins as an example because he's a devout Catholic but doesn't allow his religious beliefs to guide his research. I've never read of anyone ever criticizing Francis Collins for bringing the Bible into his lab.

Your comment about religion making bad scientists is puzzling. Does that mean that all scientists who have won Nobel Prizes and who also had a religious belief system were bad scientists? Does a "good" scientist have to be an atheist? Doesn't make any sense. I think most scientists and intelligent people for that matter, understand that religion is a belief system requiring no proof. Science does require proof. That's a huge distinction.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Phantom423

dating archeological is different. We have evidence that forms the dating technology that adequately is related to most of the time frame. Examining something from three thousand years ago and using that to find something up to sixty thousand years ago is realistic. Now using that three thousand year old evidence to figure out something millions of years ago is not realistic. We do not know all of the conditions of the world in between. For all we know, there could have been a massive outburst of the sun half a million years ago or we got belted with radioactive meteors. We could have had a restructuring of the crust which released who knows what. Science does not know for sure what happened in the past. But of course many scientists believe they know. Now, I think in the next hundred years they will learn more.


Why is archeology different? Dating techniques are applicable across a wide range of disciplines, including archeology.

I can't stand when people treat theories like facts. A theory is a theory. Testing procedures are designed to prove theories, not actually find the truth. If you design a testing procedure to show something you think is true, it can distort the results and all the theories that are created from the original theory. All the testing procedures used to date things use conditions that we assume were present in times long ago. We do not know the conditions during the days of dinosaurs, we do not know the conditions of the time after the dinosaurs died off.

You're wrong on all counts. Testing procedures vary in their application. Radiometric, nuclear spin and spectroscopic techniques are simply part of the toolbox of science. The results have to be analyzed objectively and must be reproducible. The same methods are used in modern medicine like MRI and ultrasound. Would you question them as well?



I do not believe in creationism but I do not believe the testing procedures that they tout as accurate are really accurate either. We do not have a baseline sample directly obtained form a million years ago picked fresh off the earth with no aging involved. Now if someone wants to invent a time machine and acquire a sample, then I will evaluate and possibly accept these figures that science gives.


You would have to demonstrate by example that testing procedures are not accurate. What's your evidence for that. And yes, there are baseline samples which are used for reference.
I quit, like I said it doesn't really matter. I can't think of one real reason other than people priding themselves on this knowledge which makes it important. I do not repeat something like a parrot if I do not feel it is true. I don't care who tells me it is true, if I don't research all aspects of the subject, I will not tell someone it is true.

If you notice, I am not saying that this is not possible, I am challenging the validity of the testing procedures and I am also challenging the amount of money being spent on something that does not matter. Just because consensus of the time is that this matters, I do not have to accept this. Our country is seventeen trillion in the hole, I do not think anyone is looking at whether something is necessary in the first place.

Once again, if you're challenging the validity of testing procedures, you need to show the data to substantiate that claim. The only way you could do that is by actually comparing experiments that you have performed with those instruments with the data that's already published and acknowledged by the scientific world. It's one thing to say it's not valid; it's quite another thing to prove it.

a reply to: Phantom423

These same scientists understand that their work has to be backed up by evidence. Not one of them would refute that. So why then, when it comes down to the lens they see the world through, they no longer require proof. I would tend to associate this dissonance with indoctrination at a young age. Religion is mostly accepted in the world therefor strengthening that bond and assuring it's hold in almost every field you look into.

Those who won nobels did not win them for their religious merit. They won for being innovative in their field of scientific study.

There are plenty of people who are critical of Collins. He has just learned to not interject his beliefs into his work. As it should be. That doesn't stop him from publishing non scientific views and then backing it up with the fact that he is a scientist. That is bad science and extremely dishonest.

Why do you keep stating that a religious belief system requires no proof. Of course it requires proof. To good scientists. Therefor they are bad scientists in that respect.

It's not that religion requires no proof, it's that there is no proof for it, so they just sweep that part under the rug, and now you are claiming that it no longer requires proof? How convenient for you. I could assert that physics requires no proof. Just look around you. There's physical stuff, but i guess that would be proof huh?

a reply to: Phantom423

also he didn't become a Christian until he was an adult

Well at least they believe in something. I personally wasn't around at the time but my good friend Doug who's a interplanetary vampire reckons he's never seen such a bunch of suckers.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: Phantom423

also he didn't become a Christian until he was an adult

Still doesn't mean anything if he can't prove it is real. It just backs up my point that he believes things for no good reason.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Why isn't his personal reason good enough? Who's to judge that?

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Phantom423

These same scientists understand that their work has to be backed up by evidence. Not one of them would refute that. So why then, when it comes down to the lens they see the world through, they no longer require proof. I would tend to associate this dissonance with indoctrination at a young age. Religion is mostly accepted in the world therefor strengthening that bond and assuring it's hold in almost every field you look into.

Those who won nobels did not win them for their religious merit. They won for being innovative in their field of scientific study.

There are plenty of people who are critical of Collins. He has just learned to not interject his beliefs into his work. As it should be. That doesn't stop him from publishing non scientific views and then backing it up with the fact that he is a scientist. That is bad science and extremely dishonest.

Why do you keep stating that a religious belief system requires no proof. Of course it requires proof. To good scientists. Therefor they are bad scientists in that respect.


Because religion is more than a set of beliefs. It's also cultural, historical, traditional, mythological. It's a way of life for most people who practice a religion. Why does that require proof? It doesn't. And no one should have to defend their beliefs just because they are a scientist. I do yoga and I'm a scientist. Yoga has a mystical component. Can I prove those components with data? Of course not. Am I concerned that my chakras are going to influence my interpretation of the data I accumulate in the lab? No.


It's not that religion requires no proof, it's that there is no proof for it, so they just sweep that part under the rug, and now you are claiming that it no longer requires proof? How convenient for you. I could assert that physics requires no proof. Just look around you. There's physical stuff, but i guess that would be proof huh?

Again why doesn't your belief require an explanation? Your just asserting it. Again.

The effects of yoga can be measured. There is no dif between yoga and exercise. We can also measure the effects of quiet meditation or deep thought, quiet reflection and they all correlate to the same part of the brain that deals with language, probably because our inner dialogue is being used. When an atheist sits and thinks deeply about his place in the world or about his moral convictions or something along those lines that is very important to him it will light up the same part of the brain.

I found an article from a religious scientist who does brain scans like these. He shows that when atheists think about god they do not light up these same parts. But i will show you that he has not only placed "god" into the experiment but also that his method was faulty and it has skewed his translation of the data.

This is a link to the article.
rationalcatholic.blogspot.com...

Now he goes on to explain that when he has his religious subjects meditate or think about god or pray to any god that he gets the same result. The same part of the brain is activated. He then goes on to say he studied a group of nuns and that this part dealing with meditation is actually more active during these tests.

(In comparison the same thing can be said of concert violenists, the part of the brain that deals with their left hand is more active. Same thing with other people who specialize in doing the same processes for many years. )


But then he gets to the atheists and he has them contemplate god and stuff. And it does not look the same on the brain scans. He then comes to the conclusion that atheists can't talk to god. Now this is entirely dishonest because in reality the scans are only comparing the way a believer feels about god and how an atheist feels about a god. A believer is going to be in awe and joy. He thinks of god as an authority, or maybe a father figure. He generally likes thinking about god.

An atheist on the other hand, doesn't feel the same way about it. He is not in awe. He is now thinking about something he doesn't believe in. You might as well ask him to contemplate the easter bunny or zeus, or a bully, or something that is symbolic of everything we think is wrong with the world. There is no strong conviction there, no awe, no authority. So a dif part of the brain is activated. I wouldn't think for a sec that this guy wouldn't have caught on to the difference. So i think he is being dishonest and has let his belief in god skew the results.

But he admits that meditation and private reflection can produce the same results as prayer. Dishonest.
a reply to: Phantom423

a reply to: SonoftheSun

Interesting, however my view of modern science is they are learning very quickly they don't know much at all. a quick look at ancient society, simple unanswered questions about who discovered America and they can't agree on much. To all of the Bible bashers, the bible doesn't date when "they" created all of existence yes it is plural as in God created man in "their" image. The Bible states the earth has had numerous stages, science is proving the Bible more correct than incorrect but for the topic of this post, who said American's are smart? Didn't the majority vote Obama in for a 2nd term, enough said.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Well the experiment was faulty from the git-go and doesn't show anything except the incompetence of whoever designed it.

I don't know what kind of proof you want. Which religion would you start with? There's thousands of religions around the world - Christianity alone must have hundreds of different sects. Yoga also has different methodologies, not just meditation. In a pragmatic sense, religious beliefs could be considered unproven theories or hypotheses. Theories and hypotheses exist in science as well. The difference, of course, is that religion has no mandate to present proof of anything while science does.

I'm Jewish which is an ethnic group as well as a religion. It's a nice religion with a lot of tradition. But I don't take the mystical aspects seriously - these ideas and notions, just like Christianity, were formulated before the Dark Ages, written by men in caves who were probably smoking khat leaves. By the same token, Judaism and Christianity (not all Christianity) advocate for ethical behavior and clean living. Nothing wrong with that.

I spent some time in Rome last summer and toured the Vatican. At the time, exorcism happened to be in the news. How many Catholics actually believe that there's some devil out there just waiting to take over their body? The ones that do, should never be allowed in a lab!

In any case, I don't object to religious beliefs whether they are held by scientists or non-scientists. As long as their work follows the scientific method, is honest, objective, peer reviewed and reproducible, that's all that counts. If that scientist dances naked around a maypole on Friday night worshipping some god - well that's his/her business.

a reply to: SonoftheSun

Ok, I'm going to be that guy. Does it bother anyone else that they gave the ratio as 4 out of 10? Why not just ya know, use simplified fractions to the same effect...like why not just say 2 out of 5 people? I know, it's dumb to get hung up on. I just thought it was odd/silly.

I agree, that particular experiment was faulty, i only brought it up because i thought it was the perfect example of what i was talking about earlier in this thread. Deep down i truly hold no grudge towards anyones beliefs. But i like to point out when their beliefs get in the way of reasonable thought. All too often i find that is the case. It's usually pretty easy to tell by the title of the article what your going to find when you read into the case work.

In my neck of the woods it is pretty common to find fundy creationists, evolution deniers, folks who worry about devils, ghosts, and demons, people who talk to jesus and claim jesus talks back, people who will tell you all about their personal guardian angels, tarot readers, palm readers, aura readers,lightning struck cedar stick readers, Snake handlers, and more. Lots of faith not much education. We rank 48th out of 50 states for our school test scores.

Haha. Us thinkers have to stay on our toes.

I actually love a lot of religious artwork and would personally love to visit and tour the vatican. I study all religions as a hobby. I know, it's weird.



a reply to: Phantom423

a reply to: Woodcarver

Actually, I don't regard Creationists as Christians or religious. It's a cult sucking in anyone who needs a crutch and is afraid to think for themselves.

And I agree - we have to stay on our toes. I've had a couple of scary conversations with Creationist who don't have a clue about real science, but have a firm belief in Ken Hamm's crackpot science. In the past year his organization has filed three junk bond issues to the public for his new dinosaur park (or whatever it is).
These are people we need to worry about because they infiltrate like mold - you don't know they are there until it's too late. They're mind benders of the lowest order.

Anyway, good conversation!

I actually disagree with your first paragraph. Creationists are most def christians. They are a better representation of what you learn from reading the bible (literally). They truly are in fear to digress from the literal words. Because that is the way it is stated in the book.

If you disagree with any of the five fundamental "truths" of christianity, you cannot rightly claim membership in the fold.

You are "lukewarm" so to speak.

So the majority of self proclaimed "christians" who try to rationalize and re interpret the bible to more closely match modern society and conform with science are, to me, not christians at all, but they are something equally dangerous to the education of our youth. They are not following the scripture but rather making it up as they go. They are off the rails. Following neither the traditional code of the bible nor the tenets of science. Often claiming they need not prove their beliefs. That is what leads kids to accept whatever whim strikes them at the time. Then following the example set for them they say "i don't have to back up my beliefs. "

Now granted these new age half christians are far more reasonable and far less confrontational and dangerous. So i would much rather have them around than the true followers of the word. But... They are still off the rails and not only deny science in their very beliefs but also deny the words of the bible. I don't understand how one can disagree with the bible on some of the extraordinary claims and agree with some of the others. It would seem to me that having to throw out some parts and then cherry picking the few really moral lessons, would be a clear red flag. All the while Making claims like "anything is possible". They are an amalgam of old superstitions and new age feel good crap and yet, they still promote an inherent distrust for science. It leaves me baffled but at least they are heading in the right direction. The kids growing up with this view are far more likely to see through this type of dissonance and are more likely to come to their senses at an earlier age. Which seems to be the trend.


Ken Hamm and company are pretty easy to neutralize. I live within driving distance of the creation museum. But i can't bring myself to give them any money to enter the building. Maybe we could organize a flash mob and storm the building. I call dibs on the t-rex.

a reply to: Phantom423

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The simple fact is that you can put all the information and facts in front of people that you want, but you can't make them learn if they don't want to. .

Man o man that is so true. The question .. how to break through the indoctrination and let some sunshine and fresh air in. It's incredible how thick humanity can be.

The key thing to point out about any such argument is that scientists themselves disagree on many things. So if this is the case, how can a person be conclusive about everything scientist theorize? If you watch CNN, FOX, MSNBC and so forth, journalists have a different viewpoint on many issues, so how can we take a decisive decision on what the true news is on this very day? Historians also disagree on certain dates and events. So collectively it takes discernment to understand anything. That's where wisdom comes into play. Education and intellect alone are not good enough, for if a person has a bunch of knowledge and can't connect the dots, his knowledge is of no value. I have a genius intelligence level, and I would say the Bible is accurate and reliable. I would also say that the majority of those who "believe" are uneducated about the Bible's contents. So I can see how an Atheist would look upon religion and laugh. I however look upon the Religious and Atheists alike, and wish to teach both groups the facts.

First of all, when a person looks through a telescope and sees a distant star or galaxy, he is seeing light that took millions and even billions of years to travel enough to be seen by us. That means the universe is at least as old as the light we see. That means the Earth is millions or billions of years old as well. NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THE EARTH IS ONLY 10,000 YEARS OLD. Genesis mentions the creative days, which were "eras" which could have spanned a countless number of years. As mentioned in an earlier post: 2 Peter 3:8 " With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day".

originally posted by: th3dudeabides
a reply to: SonoftheSun

Those 4 in 10 Americans are retarded. I respect the right to observe any faith you want to practice but a person's faith must change when hard evidence contradicts mythology. Social policy should not kowtow to zealotry. If you could reason with a religious person religion wouldn't exist. I agree with the govt. in this matter. Fundamentalist religions are extremely dangerous and should be monitored.

I have to agree here.

Personally, I believe anyone who believes in some omnipotent old man, with a flowing white beard, sitting on a cloud, watching mankind "along with all the other silly ideas written in the bible", just has to have some degree of mental retardation.

I don't think organised religion should be monitored though, I think it should be abolished all together..

originally posted by: TheChrome
I have a genius intelligence level, and I would say the Bible is accurate and reliable.