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

a reply to: TheChrome

You know what else you can do to find the truth? Look at non-partial evidence. Prove the outlandish crap in the bible is even TRUE to begin with. Your problem is you are starting with the premise that the bible is true (this despite MANY MANY contradictions and outlandish stories). How about starting with the premise that you don't know if the bible is true? For all you know it was written by a few men trying to gain control over the masses by trying to instill the idea to accept high authorities unquestionably by presenting a highest authority and making it seem like these men are the conduits to speak to this highest authority.

I mean how do you know that the bible is true? Because it told you so? That is circular reasoning and is a logical fallacy. Fallacies aren't the path you want to venture down towards the truth. Fallacies hide the truth in order to make a deception seem truer.

You are right that the truth cannot be disproven since by its very nature it is true. But you are going about finding it the entirely wrong way. Truth can only be obtained through evidence. The more of it the better. The bible sits on the low end of the spectrum when it comes to amount of evidence in its favor. Though the evidence AGAINST the bible being true piles higher daily.

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.

oh please...fundamentalist religions are "worshipped" here in America, we give their mythical beings power over others, we give them tax breaks, and if they own a business, their workers have to obey what a mythical being says...religious zealots abound in our local and state governments, the U.S. congress, and the U.S. supreme court.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Fair enough reply. So let's look at this from a scientific standpoint. Most in the scientific community assume there is life on other planets, since there are so many. Yet with all the radio telescopes, there has not been any evidence of such. So it is a belief in itself, not based on any true fact.

Why when doing the calculations for the theory of relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics do the final equations lead to the same point, which is unexplainable to scientists? We have to be humble in realizing we really don't know much at all. Socrates himself said "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."

And yet we have a creator, instructing us and giving us wisdom, we cannot conclude ourselves

originally posted by: TheChrome
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Fair enough reply. So let's look at this from a scientific standpoint. Most in the scientific community assume there is life on other planets, since there are so many. Yet with all the radio telescopes, there has not been any evidence of such. So it is a belief in itself, not based on any true fact.

No scientist asserts that life existing outside out universe is "fact". You'll find scientists saying it's likely considering 1) we know life can exist in this universe and 2) there's some estimated 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe.

Why when doing the calculations for the theory of relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics do the final equations lead to the same point, which is unexplainable to scientists? We have to be humble in realizing we really don't know much at all. Socrates himself said "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

And yet we have a creator, instructing us and giving us wisdom, we cannot conclude ourselves

There is zero evidence for this faith-based statement.

Until they find life outside our own, there is zero evidence. Just conjecture

a reply to: TheChrome

Who's saying there's evidence? Only you are making this claim about the scientific community. There's nothing wrong with scientists having opinions. No one is claiming that this is "fact" other than you in an absurd attempt to make science look like faith.

originally posted by: TheChrome
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Fair enough reply. So let's look at this from a scientific standpoint. Most in the scientific community assume there is life on other planets, since there are so many. Yet with all the radio telescopes, there has not been any evidence of such. So it is a belief in itself, not based on any true fact.

But it is considered to be a pretty reliable prediction given that we know the odds of life developing on a planet are greater than 0, therefore given a large enough universe and enough chances (planets), life elsewhere in the universe is inevitable.

Why when doing the calculations for the theory of relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics do the final equations lead to the same point, which is unexplainable to scientists? We have to be humble in realizing we really don't know much at all. Socrates himself said "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."

Yes this is why I am an agnostic. I don't know the answer and don't make assumptions like "God" when I don't know. You are misusing that Socrates quote by substituting god for the answer to questions you don't know the answer to. You are pretending like you know the answer to the question when in fact you do not. That is what Socrates meant when he said that.

And yet we have a creator, instructing us and giving us wisdom, we cannot conclude ourselves

Prove it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TheChrome
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Fair enough reply. So let's look at this from a scientific standpoint. Most in the scientific community assume there is life on other planets, since there are so many. Yet with all the radio telescopes, there has not been any evidence of such. So it is a belief in itself, not based on any true fact.

But it is considered to be a pretty reliable prediction given that we know the odds of life developing on a planet are greater than 0, therefore given a large enough universe and enough chances (planets), life elsewhere in the universe is inevitable.

Why when doing the calculations for the theory of relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics do the final equations lead to the same point, which is unexplainable to scientists? We have to be humble in realizing we really don't know much at all. Socrates himself said "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."

Yes this is why I am an agnostic. I don't know the answer and don't make assumptions like "God" when I don't know. You are misusing that Socrates quote by substituting god for the answer to questions you don't know the answer to. You are pretending like you know the answer to the question when in fact you do not. That is what Socrates meant when he said that.

And yet we have a creator, instructing us and giving us wisdom, we cannot conclude ourselves

Prove it.

Proof is a pretty large picture, and takes a lot of information which is too much to sort through by typing a response.
The bible is a 1500+ page book, and I would motion that most who claim it is inaccurate have never read it in it's entirety, and most who defend it have not read it in it's entirety. Better yet, those who have read it in it's entirety, probably didn't go a step further to compare it to history and science. And those who have read it in it's entirety and compared it to history and science, may have done so with a foregone conclusion.

I can prove from the bible that Man is the first physical intelligent creation in the universe and that there is no such thing as "aliens" except demonic spirit creatures. But that would go against physics and scientific conclusions. I don't think physics can explain a realm not governed by our laws. Without getting into details, why are humans beautiful creatures (although many do unspeakable things) that smile and for the most part are dignified creatures. Yet paranormal alien accounts include "the greys" that are emotionless and somewhat undignified creatures that rape, torture, and do experiments on people. Things that the majority of man would think is deplorable, and yet it is accepted that a more advanced race is capable of these things? Yes a more advanced race is capable of this, the spirits who rebelled against god and seek to mislead people. The ones who are mentioned that were able to take human form. If they have that sort of power over the elements they most certainly can create spaceships and other things to fool us.

Does this sort of spooky "alien" thing sound anything on par with the teaching of hellfire to you? Think about it...

Scare tactics

a reply to: TheChrome

I don't know which is more cute. The fact that you think a book of bronze age myths (human psychological construct #1) is proof of anything at all, or that you think there is any stock at all in peoples reports of grey aliens (human psychological construct #2).

Oh wait, no both wrong. It's this -

originally posted by: TheChrome
I have a genius intelligence level

Now that's cute. That's the kind of unashamed hubris that will keep on giving for years..

As an American by nationality of birth location and current residence I can honestly say in my life I have never knowingly known many to beleive such things. Are they not outspoken or is this just pure innacurate reporting of numbers through a biased poll? I have a desire to leave the country.

originally posted by: TheChrome
Proof is a pretty large picture, and takes a lot of information which is too much to sort through by typing a response.
The bible is a 1500+ page book, and I would motion that most who claim it is inaccurate have never read it in it's entirety, and most who defend it have not read it in it's entirety. Better yet, those who have read it in it's entirety, probably didn't go a step further to compare it to history and science. And those who have read it in it's entirety and compared it to history and science, may have done so with a foregone conclusion.

Anyone who has read the bible in its entirety should come across all of these contradictions:
Bible Contradictions chart

That alone tells me that the bible is an unreliable source.

I can prove from the bible that Man is the first physical intelligent creation in the universe and that there is no such thing as "aliens" except demonic spirit creatures. But that would go against physics and scientific conclusions. I don't think physics can explain a realm not governed by our laws. Without getting into details, why are humans beautiful creatures (although many do unspeakable things) that smile and for the most part are dignified creatures. Yet paranormal alien accounts include "the greys" that are emotionless and somewhat undignified creatures that rape, torture, and do experiments on people. Things that the majority of man would think is deplorable, and yet it is accepted that a more advanced race is capable of these things? Yes a more advanced race is capable of this, the spirits who rebelled against god and seek to mislead people. The ones who are mentioned that were able to take human form. If they have that sort of power over the elements they most certainly can create spaceships and other things to fool us.

The bible says a lot of things but so does the Lord of the Rings. You don't see me practicing magic and trying to keep Sauron from taking over the Earth. So what evidence do you have that the bible is telling you the truth? Before you answer, let me guess, the bible tells you that it is true?

Does this sort of spooky "alien" thing sound anything on par with the teaching of hellfire to you? Think about it...

Scare tactics

Did it ever occur to you that maybe these aliens were visiting earth back in the day and the people back then MIS-ATTRIBUTED them to demons? You make the assumption that they must not be aliens but all evidence EXCEPT for the bible says that it would be otherwise. So that leaves someone with a non-biased view to say that the bible is wrong. Your argument assumes that all the evidence is wrong and the bible is correct, which is folly. Of course this assumes that aliens are even visiting this planet to begin with.

Without getting into details, why are humans beautiful creatures (although many do unspeakable things) that smile and for the most part are dignified creatures. Yet paranormal alien accounts include "the greys" that are emotionless and somewhat undignified creatures that rape, torture, and do experiments on people.

What does this even mean? Humans do some of the most atrocious things ever thought of. Where there is a will, there is a way and humans are constantly finding new ways to abuse each other. There are humans that ALSO rape, torture, and do experiments on people. At least in the grey's case it is on a different species than their own which shows a disrespect for lifeforms other than themselves. We on the other hand have no respect for our own species and do that crap anyways to ourselves. Also, nowhere does it say that high intelligence necessitates benevolence. That is just an assumption based on the fact that lifeforms want to survive.

I'm going to leave you with the Socrates quote you said earlier since it does more to prove my point than it does to prove yours:

Socrates himself said "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you even research any of this crap to see if it's true? I looked at the bible contradiction chart, and the first scripture I read was out of context. That chart claims the bible says the sun revolves around the earth citing Psalms 19:4-6. The actual verse says "It rises at one end of the heavens and makes it's circuit to the other." It is describing sunrise and sunset, not the sun revolving around the earth! The bible does not contradict itself, people do. I bet I could debunk every stupid so called "contradiction" on that chart if I had nothing better to do.

There are quite a few verses in which the bible is scientifically accurate thousands of years before man reached the same conclusion.

For example, in the middle ages people still thought the earth was flat, and yet the bible says at Isaiah 40:22 "he sits enthroned above the circle of the earth" (The scriptures told man the earth was round.)

"He suspends the earth over nothing" Job 26:7 (Meanwhile mystical religion had Atlas, tortoises etc. supporting the earth)

"All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again." Ecclesiastes 1:7 (The water cycle)

Jeremiah 33:25 refers to "The fixed laws of the heavens and earth." (we are only starting to understand them)

As far as medical and sanitary issues it was way ahead of it's time. Why? Could it have been God? Even with the education in our society, a good portion of the planet today does not even abide by the sanitary instructions of a silly old book thousands of years old.

Disposal of sewage: to be "buried outside the camp" Deuteronomy 23:12,13 (excrement within a certain radius can seep into the ground and cause sickness)

Touching dead animals and humans: Leviticus 11:27-38 talks about washing cloths, jars and so forth with water that come in contact with dead carcasses. (Protecting from bacteria)

Leviticus 13:1-8 set guidelines for identifying leprosy, and quarantine.

a reply to: SonoftheSun

I don't see a the first thing wrong with belief in
the virgin birth. But No, I don't believe the Earth is
only ten thousand years old.

originally posted by: randyvs
I don't see a the first thing wrong with belief in
the virgin birth.

Luckily for Mary (if she existed), people at the time were also gullible enough to swallow this one. What with stoning being such popular pastime (as also instructed by this loving god himself).

Na, don't know how that one happened, wasn't gettin' any on the side or anything like that dear, promise. It's a miracle...it must have been god...honestly!

Good on her, got to admire the ingenuity.

a reply to: SonoftheSun


All you anti-evolutionist people are idiots. Plain and simple. Look at the fossil record. Something that keeps giving us information as we find new places to dig. New information gets published. Take a science class for once.
I used to belong to one of your so called "religions" but I wised up. Religion is a farce.
Take a genetics class and it will open up your eyes. Evolution is still going on. Look into Sickle Cell Anemia and Epigenetics.

Kratos

originally posted by: Kratos40
a reply to: SonoftheSun


All you anti-evolutionist people are idiots. Plain and simple. Look at the fossil record. Something that keeps giving us information as we find new places to dig. New information gets published. Take a science class for once.
I used to belong to one of your so called "religions" but I wised up. Religion is a farce.
Take a genetics class and it will open up your eyes. Evolution is still going on. Look into Sickle Cell Anemia and Epigenetics.

Kratos

"If numerous species ...have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution. Charles Darwin, Origin of The Species. The Cambrian period of the fossil record shows an unexplained explosion of complex life. There is no evidence in the fossil record of a connection to the simple life before it, or more complex life after it. Science has skewed the facts and data in this case and is bogus.

a reply to: TheChrome

Darwin's hypothesis of how things evolved were never accepted 100 percent. But he did get some stuff right. Before him, Gregor Mendel was on the right track until we lost his research a couple hundred years. His basic research in pea genetics opened up a whole new world.
You can't argue about that now since we use those basic discoveries to map the Human Genome and other genomes as well. Recombinant DNA technology, PCR, so on so forth. Not only that but we now understand how different RNAs interact with our chromosomes as well.

Kratos

a reply to: Kratos40\

I think the fact that the probability of life forming by chance is beyond what is accepted by mathematics as a statistical improbability, combined with an absence of any evidence in the fossil record of evolution, speaks for itself.

Quite frankly, the same desire to fit evolution into science, is the same desire to intertwine all sorts of mythological customs into the bible. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

a reply to: TheChrome

Howdy,

You seem to have... the wrong impression about what the Cambrian Explosion is and... well, what came before.

Put simply, the Cambrian "Explosion" is the period, lasting some 20 or so million years, during which organisms first began precipitating calcium carbonate out of seawater to produce hard/skeletal parts. Unfortunately, this showed geologists/paleontologists one of the biggest flaws in the fossil record...

Fossilization is a rare and selective process. Certain conditions need to be met so that fossilization (of any variety, but conditions change with different processes that end up in "fossilized remains..."). Usually, things need to be buried in sediment. They also need to not decay and not be picked apart by predators. Soft organisms, without hard parts, are thus less likely to be buried in slow accumulations of sediment, but hard parts will be able to survive. (Look at modern seashells, some of which have been around for thousands of years based on the shell chemistry.) It's no surprise that the majority of fossils found are of hard, mineralized parts.

However, soft organisms do get buried in rapid mass wasting events/storm beds. (I routinely pick through storm beds when I collect my trilobites. ) These rapid burials can sometimes fossilize the soft bodied organisms in what geologists/paleontologists call Lagerstatten. The Burgess Shale (a Cambrian formation) is perhaps the most well known of these, but there are others that predate it. (Precambrian, thus pre-Cambrian Explosion.)

en.wikipedia.org...

See, life dates back pretty far in Earth history. Almost 4 billion years. Some of the earliest life was an algal-like matted "colonial" lifeform called a stromatolite (some still exist in the very saline coastal areas of Australia, where predators cannot stand the salinity.) They didn't produce mineralized skeletons, but rather had sediment get stuck to them, and they then grew over top it so they could continue to photosynthesize.

en.wikipedia.org...

As for connection to complex life after the Cambrian explosion, well, that simply isn't true. The trilobites are obviously all related to the trilobites from the Cambrian, and they date to the end Permian, with unique diversification from points that were once close. (For example, Ohio has a trilobite known as Eldgredeops rana, which is very similar to Phacops rana in Morocco. Yet, as geologic time passes, (you move into younger rock) the trilobites in Appalachia died from sediment influx while the Moroccan trilobites diversified from the common points...)

Brachiopods have living ancestors... Bivalves do too. Echinoderms too... Even chordates, the ancestor of vertebrates, have their roots in the Cambrian. In fact, very few organisms do NOT have relatives in the Cambrian.

Although you are right about one thing, the life before the Cambrian was mostly... different. The Ediacara fauna were mostly sessile, and went extinct around the time moving organisms show up in the fossil record...
en.wikipedia.org...

The science seems pretty "un-skewed" to me, but perhaps I am biased... I have done my best to share three years of education, academic and personal, on some geologic questions, please do forgive me if I was too brief. I can clarify if anything was too quickly passed over.

Regards,
Hydeman