It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777

I'm not sitting through several hours of waffling video. Provide text links.



Among the members of the National Academy of Sciences, 7% believed in God, 72.2% did not, and 20.8% were agnostic or had doubts. The study performed has been criticized, however, for defining God as "a God one may pray to in expectation of receiving an answer."[26] In 1916, 1,000 leading American scientists were randomly chosen from American Men of Science and 41.8% believed God existed, 41.5% disbelieved, and 16.7% had doubts/did not know; however when the study was replicated 80 years later using American Men and Women of Science in 1996, results were very much the same with 39.3% believing God exists, 45.3% disbelieved, and 14.5% had doubts/did not know.[27] However, these studies have been criticized for leaving lots of room for ambiguity in the questions


Basically what we've been trying to tell you, scientists overwhelmingly don't have a literal belief in the bible (don't think they can pray to anyone).

I'm not seeing in any of the journal I read (mainly genetics, biology and anthropology) any kind of scientifc work published to support any literal interpretation of the bible.

You can post a list of christian scientists as long as your arm, it won't stop them being in a minority. It also won't make them support a literal interpretation of the bible, as they generally don't.




posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
Just as many believe that we were once monkeys. What is your point?


So, what you are saying is you don't understand Evolutionary Theory?

Evolutionary Theory doesn't state that "we were once monkeys" that is an entirely Christian criticism of evolution. And, one that has existed for about 150 yrs. Ever heard of the "Scopes Monkey Trial". That was the prosecutions main argument against teaching evolution to HS students.

So, no . . . nobody believes "we were once monkeys". Maybe you are confusing "shared a common ancestor" with "once were"?

Monkeys are on a totally seperate branch from Hominids. "Monkeys" didn't lead to human.

However, watch NOVA's "Intelligent Design on Trial" (you can watch on the PBS site or YouTube) or the doc called "The Revisionists" (can watch on Netflix or Amazon). Plenty of christians in both of those that flat out state that the earth is between 6-10k yrs old.

Or simply visit the "Creationism Museum" in Kentucky.
edit on 6/6/14 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   
“There is an appearance of humility in the protestation that the truth is much greater than any one of us can grasp, but if this is used to invalidate all claims to discern the truth it is in fact an arrogant claim to a kind of knowledge which is superior to [others]…We have to ask: ‘What is the [absolute] vantage ground from which you claim to be able to relativize all the absolute claims these different scriptures make?”

Pluralists cannot reasonably claim to have an impartial, unbiased perspective, but rather their statements are couched in the resolute belief that their way is the only way.
thornscompose.com...






edit on 013030p://bFriday2014 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   
It sometimes seems amazing to me that our technologically advanced industrial system is able to function.

Of course, we do bring in a lot of people with training and advanced degrees from overseas.

And there must be some sort of compartmentalizing going on where (for example) someone can simultaneously believe in the young earth theory and the Haber–Bosch process.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: solomons path

Thank you for the star!

But the bottom ten states are:

Georgia, Tennessee, Hawaii, Alabama, Alaska, Louisiana, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Mississippi, and Arizona.

Only 3 are blue states. California, New Mexico, and Hawaii.

I am actually surprised that New Mexico is a blue state.

My point being is that the more religious the state, the lower the education. Arizona may be the exception to the relgion. I think Arizona has the least amount of churches per capita, surprisingly.

I have lived in Arizona myself. We bolted out of there when I was 7.5 months pregnant because the doctors, the education, were sub par.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

Shows you don't know very much about our system. Scroll back and look at my post about the state ranks in education.

Despite having some states that suck at education and make the rest of the country look bad, the top universities are American. The exceptions are Cambridge and Oxford.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: nixie_nox
a reply to: solomons path

Thank you for the star!

But the bottom ten states are:

Georgia, Tennessee, Hawaii, Alabama, Alaska, Louisiana, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Mississippi, and Arizona.

Only 3 are blue states. California, New Mexico, and Hawaii.

I am actually surprised that New Mexico is a blue state.

My point being is that the more religious the state, the lower the education. Arizona may be the exception to the relgion. I think Arizona has the least amount of churches per capita, surprisingly.

I have lived in Arizona myself. We bolted out of there when I was 7.5 months pregnant because the doctors, the education, were sub par.



Cool . . . just in the picture AZ is yellow, they label as "middle states". Those states in red are labeled "bottom ten" . . . anyway . . . I think we both agree with the premise and regional issues anyway.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I was suspicious that the article did not link to actual poll. I found what I believe to be the poll and noticed the questions were biased from the onset.

There were only three options and they had to choose WHICH BEST fit, even if none were a good fit.

I don't personally know anyone who believes humans were created by a higher power/god 10,000 years ago but I know several people who believe "god" created humans much longer ago.

There was no option for the latter so the next closest fit of the three limited options would be that god created man 10,000 years ago since their over-riding belief is a higher power/god created humans but the exact time is secondary but much longer than 10,000 years ago.

www.gallup.com...



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
"You cant avoid exclusive view claims, you are claiming the very thing that you say no religion must claim,superior knowledge,

what real narrowness is, who's open and who's narrow?

Narrowness is disdaining and sneering at and belittling people that have a different exclusive claim than yours, what you really need in this world is people that have an exclusive truth claim that humbles them."

Dr. Tim Keller

that is a good video, people should watch it.
edit on 013030p://bFriday2014 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Lice00

It matters because there is a concerted effort by fundamentalist Christians to subvert academic standards by getting their pseudoscientific beliefs taught along side science in the science classes. The world would be a much better place if such people weren't so hellbent on forcing their beliefs on others, as you say.


You just kind of pulled that out of nowhere, this poll and my response had nothing to do with fundamentalist christians.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   
This is a fascinating argument. Hopefully I won't antagonise anyone if I claim to be both a scientist and a Christian.

I am a post graduate science student who has gone on to teach high school science. There are several sections of the syllabus that could be used as examples but the most common one is the theory of evolution. Without fail, whenever I teach this section my pupils ask me if I believe what the bible says about creation. They are usually asking if I believe it literally.

And my honest answer? "Yes, I believe it but not literally as in our human day to day understanding of the time period of a 24 hour day. I believe that those who wrote the original version in their original language were trying to explain things that were difficult to explain to a mostly illiterate audience, who passed on lore and knowledge and expertise in stories and word of mouth. They had an extremely limited understanding of science and proven facts to draw on. They had a great understanding of their natural world, often focused on skills and knowledge needed for survival (e.g. they knew how to grow and tend crops but not the mechanisms of cell division and genetic seed production). Their access to scientific proof was far less than ours is today.

They were writing for a simpler people (note I did not say a more stupid people). They were also writing in a language that is different to ours. We are now relying on linguists and students of theology to provide us with translations, and who is to say that literal interpretations are entirely accurately reflecting the original intentions of the writers."

So yes, I do believe both the theory of evolution and the biblical story of creation. I just interpret this is my own way which is that the more science I learn the more fascinated I am at how wondrous and magical our world is, which strengthens my belief that there is a higher power (call it God if you must) designing these wonders. Where I am teaching now is a mostly Christian school , but I have taught in schools of predominantly other religions and had the same questions from pupils.

My final point that I would like to make is that I firmly believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs with one caveat - their opinions and beliefs should not hurt others. But as a school teacher I also have to get my students to pass with decent grades and so I teach the syllabus as laid out by our system and invite student discussion.
edit on 6-6-2014 by Mura44 because: spelling

edit on 6-6-2014 by Mura44 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-6-2014 by Mura44 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: solomons path

I don't think that map is entirely correct. But it was the only one that let me copy the picture.

I too, had ot make a decision to let my son stay with his father during the week for a better education. It is a very hard sacrifice to make. But the elementary school he goes too is one of the best in the country.

In fact, next year he is in third grade. (where did the time go? :'(
This school system is so progressive that third grade is the deciding grade. It is so hard that any child who aces third grade has been show to have a choice of any college in the country. And the kids know it. My son is freaking out about third grade.
It is the equivalent of the SATs.

Sucks to be sacrificial parents, doesn't it??

I do have my son on the weekends, I actually think I get the better deal. I actually get more time since he doesn't go to school, and I get the free time and don't have to spend it doing homework.

But I hate not being involved much in education. I wish I could afford to get an apartment in the area.

But money has a lot to do with it. And this is a very rich state. The average income in the county where my son goes to school is 125k.

Which is why all the states ranked with the best education, are also the richest.

Arizona isn't rich unfortunately. And they spend the least in education, which is why they are near last.


Speaking of which. I must leave now to spend money I do not have on a birthday present for a kid whose parents literally make 10x what I do.

edit on 6-6-2014 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Lice00


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



Why does it really matter what others believe in?



It matters because there is a concerted effort by fundamentalist Christians to subvert academic standards by getting their pseudoscientific beliefs taught along side science in the science classes.


An example of why it matters what other people believe in, specifically with the poll described in this thread. There's nothing to read between the lines here.
edit on 6-6-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Did you go to the primary source of the poll and read it for yourself or did you rely on the biased article to interpret the poll for you?

There is more between the lines than in the lines themselves.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

What are you suggesting? That livescience.com are misrepresenting the poll? Do you have any evidence to support this claim?



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Never mind, I wont bother.
edit on 6-6-2014 by BELIEVERpriest because: nope



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
Just as many believe that we were once monkeys. What is your point?


So, what you are saying is you don't understand Evolutionary Theory?

Evolutionary Theory doesn't state that "we were once monkeys" that is an entirely Christian criticism of evolution. And, one that has existed for about 150 yrs. Ever heard of the "Scopes Monkey Trial". That was the prosecutions main argument against teaching evolution to HS students.

So, no . . . nobody believes "we were once monkeys". Maybe you are confusing "shared a common ancestor" with "once were"?

Monkeys are on a totally seperate branch from Hominids. "Monkeys" didn't lead to human.

However, watch NOVA's "Intelligent Design on Trial" (you can watch on the PBS site or YouTube) or the doc called "The Revisionists" (can watch on Netflix or Amazon). Plenty of christians in both of those that flat out state that the earth is between 6-10k yrs old.

Or simply visit the "Creationism Museum" in Kentucky.


I don't have cable.

Threads like these are really misleading. The truth is more likely that 90% of Americans don't know HOW old the earth is, and they are just taking a guess. Then atheists come along and tie it to religion and get a hardon about it.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
I was suspicious that the article did not link to actual poll. I found what I believe to be the poll and noticed the questions were biased from the onset.

There were only three options and they had to choose WHICH BEST fit, even if none were a good fit.

I don't personally know anyone who believes humans were created by a higher power/god 10,000 years ago but I know several people who believe "god" created humans much longer ago.

There was no option for the latter so the next closest fit of the three limited options would be that god created man 10,000 years ago since their over-riding belief is a higher power/god created humans but the exact time is secondary but much longer than 10,000 years ago.

www.gallup.com...



The survey uses a likert scale. So they're able to state their level of agreement. And they could disagree completely with both. Which I would imagine the people you describe would.

There's also another place where they can state they believe in God-guided evolution.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mura44
And my honest answer? "Yes, I believe it but not literally as in our human day to day understanding of the time period of a 24 hour day. I believe that those who wrote the original version in their original language were trying to explain things that were difficult to explain to a mostly illiterate audience, who passed on lore and knowledge and expertise in stories and word of mouth. They had an extremely limited understanding of science and proven facts to draw on. They had a great understanding of their natural world, often focused on skills and knowledge needed for survival (e.g. they knew how to grow and tend crops but not the mechanisms of cell division and genetic seed production). Their access to scientific proof was far less than ours is today.

They were writing for a simpler people (note I did not say a more stupid people). They were also writing in a language that is different to ours. We are now relying on linguists and students of theology to provide us with translations, and who is to say that literal interpretations are entirely accurately reflecting the original intentions of the writers."


Logic AND faith coexisting? Color me surprised, a very rare commodity these days, or so it would seem.
This is the most concise, grounded explanation of these apparently conflicting belief systems I've come across.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

Cable schmable . . . All of the sources I gave for those videos were (or can be) internet based. You obviously have access to the internet.

As for the rest . . .

More lack of knowledge about what we can prove . . .

As stormdancer pointed out . . . not all scientists are atheist. So, scientific knowledge isn't tied to supernatural ideology.

We know the earth is, at a minimum, 4.5 billion yrs old. We can date rocks using Uranium-Lead or Uranium-Thorium or Potassium-Argon methods. The decay rates can predicted and tracked, as we have mathematical proofs for such decay.


This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old



The oldest such minerals analyzed to date – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – are at least 4.404 billion years old.[5][6][7] Comparing the mass and luminosity of the Sun to those of other stars, it appears that the solar system cannot be much older than those rocks. Calcium-aluminium-rich inclusions – the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the solar system – are 4.567 billion years old,[8][9] giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth.




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join