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

a reply to: Stormdancer777

But science and faith are mutually exclusive. Science is based on observation, and experimaentation, which leads to data.

Faith is the belief in something even though all the data says otherwise.

If you have the data you don't need faith.

They cannot exist in the same study.

originally posted by: CloudsTasteMetallic
a reply to: Mura44

Ah, if only more were enlightened enough to see past the false dichotomy. After all, isn't worship of the "almighty fact" in itself a form of faith?

I guess, but that wouldn't be science. I hear this a lot. Science is about building models. When the data changes the model it changes our understanding of the subject. There is no faith involved.

Religion is the opposite. It holds on to the belief in spite of the data.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Only an idiot would believe that we have great enough science to properly figure ages out millions of years ago. It was a very long time ago, but we do not have definite references to determine those dates. Three thousand years is not enough of a reference to date millions of years, we do not know all the conditions throughout time everywhere to determine that accurately.

Again, it's about building models. We are constantly figuring out new ways to narrow down our margins of error. There are lots of ways to determine the age of materials. When these different methods show a consistent timeline then we can be pretty sure our model is accurate. There will always be new data that improves our models but there won't be something that comes along and fundementally changes the entire model. We won't find a dino thats 10,000 yrs old. Our models are accurate enough to narrow this timeline back to 65 million years ago.

a reply to: Woodcarver

I understand your point, but as one who keeps up on the latest scientific studies and archeological finds and has for years.

Some scientific theory takes a lot of faith.

And through the years I have seen scientist test their theories and change their minds or have questions, and disagree with one another.


Scientific discoveries do not diminish my belief in a creator they enhance it.

I you happened to watch the video by Collins the man and scientist who was an atheist, raised by atheist parents physician geneticist, you find he feels the same way, it was his study of science that made him a believer in a higher power, and through many years of searching this subject he is not the only one.


I know I post videos people seldom watch.

The Veritas Forum: The Language of God (Francis Collins)

youtu.be...




God/creator is at least plausible.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: SonoftheSun
*snip*
Don't get me wrong, I don't like that the title mentions Americans and I wish that this thread doesn't turn into an "Americans are ignorant" bashing thread. *snip*

But a Christian bashing thread is fine with you?

On page one alone, I see Christians described as follows:

medieval, ignorant, idiots, retarded, stupid, dumb, complainers, zealotry, fundamentalist, extremely dangerous and should be monitored, psychologically unhealthy, uneducated, incapable of critical thinking

Nice, ATS. Way to show your tolerance and acceptance of others, and your impeccable manners. *sarcasm off*

This thread should be removed.

I see no problem with any of those labels. Don't you think it's dangerous to allow false information to propagate? I mean to say that it is religious texts which propagate exclusion, racism, hate for gays, fear of punishment for not conforming to views not held by science. A general distrust of science.

I think that is very dangerous to society and the world as a whole.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: CloudsTasteMetallic
a reply to: Mura44

Ah, if only more were enlightened enough to see past the false dichotomy. After all, isn't worship of the "almighty fact" in itself a form of faith?

I guess, but that wouldn't be science. I hear this a lot. Science is about building models. When the data changes the model it changes our understanding of the subject. There is no faith involved.

Not all science. Many psychicists are devoting their careers to "String Theory" for which there's no evidence and no clear way to even create methods of testing it. Many have equated it to a religion.

Religion is the opposite. It holds on to the belief in spite of the data.

Findings have caused some religions to change their dogma or interpretation of scripture. For example, very few Christians, even fundamentalists, think heaven is a physical place in the sky above earth. Though that was accepted dogma for centuries.

a reply to: SonoftheSun

I now think that saying someone is ignorant on a certain subject just doesn't cut it. The person being called ignorant on a certain topic takes it as being totally ignorant across the board, which isn't the case but it is perceived that way.

"Ignorant" may not technically be a pejorative, but I think in every day usage it is. It's just not taken as the neutral term that some would like to believe, or as some would pretend to believe. If someone is interested in a productive/collaborative dialogue, it's a term best avoided because of the commonly associated negative connotations.

She isn't dumb, actually far from it. She's an honor student from one of our best Universities here in Montreal, in Finances.
But science isn't her thing.

I think that's an important point, one that seems to be overlooked in this thread. Not everyone considers the question of the age of the earth to be pivotal in their lives. Not everyone believes that it warrants the time and effort required to develop a well thought out, researched, and firm position on the matter. Maybe they pick one group or "experts" to "trust" over another, whether that's those that exposit from a scientific viewpoint or a religious viewpoint . . . because it just doesn't matter that much to them, but they're both operating from a certain amount of faith. So to judge their intelligence on a matter that just doesn't reflect their intellectual best efforts isn't fair or honest.

When I pointed out that the lack of information pointed to ignorance, well...that didn't go too well.

Yeah you're going to pay for that, you might want to consider flowers as a down payment on the debt you've just incurred.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

I have met this guy before. All he does is sow the seeds of doubt. He never shows why the facts are wrong. He just points out that it could be wrong. Scientists understand this and include this doubt in their models. Hence the ability to change the model with new data.

When scientists disagree it is a good thing. That is how we avoid leaving out certain lines of investigation. But it all comes down to the data. Not the opinion of what the data means.

a reply to: Moresby

Physicists accept that string theory isn't even a hypothesis yet. Not sure what the issue is here. If it works out, the payoffs are huge. If not, no big loss.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: Woodcarver

I understand your point, but as one who keeps up on the latest scientific studies and archeological finds and has for years.

Some scientific theory takes a lot of faith.

And through the years I have seen scientist test their theories and change their minds or have questions, and disagree with one another.

Let's see if this phrase I often see in scientific literature sounds familiar: "....and based on our findings, we believe that..."

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: CloudsTasteMetallic
a reply to: Mura44

Ah, if only more were enlightened enough to see past the false dichotomy. After all, isn't worship of the "almighty fact" in itself a form of faith?

I guess, but that wouldn't be science. I hear this a lot. Science is about building models. When the data changes the model it changes our understanding of the subject. There is no faith involved.

Not all science. Many psychicists are devoting their careers to "String Theory" for which there's no evidence and no clear way to even create methods of testing it. Many have equated it to a religion.

Religion is the opposite. It holds on to the belief in spite of the data.

Findings have caused some religions to change their dogma or interpretation of scripture. For example, very few Christians, even fundamentalists, think heaven is a physical place in the sky above earth. Though that was accepted dogma for centuries.

This is just a case of moving the goal post. When science shows that an interpretation of scripture is unlikely, they reinterpret it so that it is just out side the reach of science.

To use your example, they used to believe that heaven was a physical place that was relatively "close", like right beyond the clouds. I you asked them where god and heaven were, they would likely point up to the sky. Now that science has seen lightyears into space, we know it's not there. Now when you ask them where heaven is, it's some immaterial plane that exists in your heart or all around us but it is unmeasurable.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Moresby

Physicists accept that string theory isn't even a hypothesis yet. Not sure what the issue is here. If it works out, the payoffs are huge. If not, no big loss.

What pay-off? They aren't even looking for proof. Most are just playing around with math.

They are scientists devoting their productive lives to what amounts to a religion.

Scientists are not immune from the human ability to believe in ideas simply because they like them.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Moresby

Physicists accept that string theory isn't even a hypothesis yet. Not sure what the issue is here. If it works out, the payoffs are huge. If not, no big loss.

String theory is far beyond the hypothesis stage. There is a very good model being built that accounts for some of the observations we have seen. However it is also not all inclusive. It is simply a model being built.

a reply to: Moresby

You seem to misunderstand String Theory. They are hoping to develop a model that will explain all types of observed elementary particles. That's what scientific theories are supposed to do. You make it sound like these physicists are hindering a cure for cancer or something. Are you familiar with the concept of 'division of labor'? How is that in any way analogous to religion, exactly?

a reply to: Woodcarver

There's no experimental evidence for ST right now and we have no practical means to test it with current technology and understanding. Who knows where we'll be in a few decades, though.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Carver, I'm thinking to be a well rounded individual one should consider all this life has to offer, philosophy, spirituality, the sciences, the human condition and the paths we take.

Joel Primack has a long and distinguished career as an astrophysicist. A University of California, Santa Cruz, professor, he co-developed the cold dark matter theory that seeks to explain the formation and structure of the universe.


He also believes in God.

"In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we're now able to tell a coherent story" of how the universe began, Primack said. "This story does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of] God."



I think what atheist hate is religion not spirituality, they see this metaphysical god and have a hard time perceiving it on that metaphysical level,when in fact god/creator, is one of us.

Don't limit yourself, we are always setting limitation on ourselves, and then we miss the bigger picture.

I say god is love, be kind to one another and you represent some form of higher consciousness, whether you are a believer or not,

Listen to one another, learn from one another, we all have something to offer, whether you are one whose conscious experiences lie dominantly with things of the spirit, or things of the material realm, try and find common ground.

A few weeks ago I swore I would never post on ATS again, my heart was so broken I cried like a baby, because I legitimately was trying to reach out and find common ground on a topic with atheist, at the time I thought I was crying for myself, but it became obvious the sorrow so deep, was for the state of humanity, I am sure at times I may have hurt others on the forum, I don't want to be that person.

Life is to short to have a forum weigh you down.

a reply to: Woodcarver

This is just a case of moving the goal post.

Do you call it "moving the goal post" when science modifies it's understanding based on new evidence?

Hey, a faith debate, I love these endless semantics battles.

FAITH

Definition 1 - Complete trust of confidence in someone or something.

"I have faith that the sun will rise everyday"
"I have faith that the garbage man comes on Tuesday."

Definition 2 - Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

"I have faith that magic pixies are hidden in the bottom of my garden"
"I have faith that when we die our consciousness is downloaded into another vessel or ascends to an ethereal plain."

It seems to me even in this context definition 1 is still based on observational data. There are two definitions for a reason.

To say, "Scientific theory is faith until proven or discredited" is erroneous. Until data is verified a hypothesis fits neither definition, because no trust is present. Only after data is collected and the theory is proven can it be considered "faith", but only per definition 1.

Any takers?

a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

Thanks, no poll is ever going to be truly accurate and a badly designed poll can exhibit all sorts of bias but Gallup are up there with the more rigorous methodologies as far as polling goes.

originally posted by: Moresby



What pay-off? They aren't even looking for proof. Most are just playing around with math.

the math is the proof. They are dealing with particles that we can measure but we cannot see. We know some of the ways these particles interact with each other, so that is where the model starts. We use math to extrapolate these interactions into other models. The ones that prove useful (have a high percentage of predictability) get included into the main model. These models are built out of mathematical formulas.

They are scientists devoting their productive lives to what amounts to a religion.

is math a religion? Cause that is what they are using.

Scientists are not immune from the human ability to believe in ideas simply because they like them.

This is correct. That is why we look at the data and not the scientist.