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

a reply to: Degradation33

I don't think you'll find a single scientist on the planet who says they have "complete trust in confidence" in a scientific theory. We can be damn near as sure about a lot of things but there's no such thing as "proof" in science as everything is open to change when new evidence comes to light.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: Woodcarver

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.

Disagreement is a good thing since science and our knowledge of things is DYNAMIC. Very few theories are being established and then stand fix for all eternity. If that were the case, there WOULD be no increase in knowledge, science would stagnate.

However I don't think the term "faith" is entirely accurate, at least not in a sense as compared to the faith someone has in a holy book. Because MOSTLY, the "faith" in science is still based on reasoning. Ex, I *could* have "faith" there was a Big Bang, from my knowledge and observation that everything in the universe expands..leading to a speculation/conclusion that possibly all started from one tiny point...so I develop a "faith" there was a Big Bang if I don't have other reasons which would contradict my theory. But it's STILL based on observation and knowledge, this faith is not "randomly grabbed out of thin air" or worse, would contradict things that can be observed and tested.

You are actually CORRECT that scientific knowledge does not, not even remotely, have to go against faith or a belief. This is a self-limitation of some religions/people. Someone can believe in a creator while at the same time accepting common science. It's possible. When someone religious makes it a basis of their faith that dinos lived with man 6000 years ago and the finding that this ISN'T SO would invalidate their faith....it's their problem. In the same way as if we were to find one day there is life on other planets etc... I always say...if I were to belong to a religious group which literally goes "against" science, I personally would want my money back and choose a more modern, less limited belief instead : ) (And this limitation goes a LONG way, for ex. also the idea and perception of a god. It's so extreme that any deviation of the dogmas and limited views is seen as heretic. Example of this would be someone who believes in reincarnation but is told that this belief would be heretic, so he must be an anti-theist, worse even, he might be worshipping the devil etc. etc. because he dares to expand his limited belief a little BEYOND of what's in the holy book : )

a reply to: Woodcarver

You cannot take things apart and examine just one peace to conclude something. You cannot properly identify a puzzle by looking at ten pieces of a 300 piece puzzle. As far as Dinosaurs, it doesn't matter how long ago they existed, it would be more honest to just say they lived long ago and went extinct long ago. We do not really even need to know how long ago. It is appropriate to say that they were mostly long gone before the mammoth died off except their relatives the birds. I see science as trying to get too specific on things that actually really don't matter.

Now when you are dealing with nuclear Fusion/Fission and Physics, it is important to be exact. This science, and math are important to be accurate. But even there, the way our sun works is not exactly known, but they state that they do not completely know how our sun works though. A theory is a theory. Even the law of thermodynamics doesn't always apply when it integrates with life...it complicates the issue and changes the way things work. So is the law of thermodynamics actually relevent? It is when you eliminate life. It works for some things but cannot be applied to everything. Enzymes are almost a life chemical too, as are complexes of catalysts. They alter the law of thermodynamics but in the case of catalysts, they have studied these somewhat.

I have no problem with science, it is a good tool. A tool that can be used by everyone, the good, the greedy, the power hungry, and also the ones who seek pride. Now do we really need all that science creates...not really. We need food, water warmth and companionship since we are a social species.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
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.

Sure but the data should guide you not you guide the data. It has no bearing on the discussion what anybody believes. Its what the data can prove. Causation. If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out. There have been lots of scientific discoveries by the clergy itself. But they are all held up by the data and not the sincerity of their beliefs.

a reply to: Woodcarver

If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out.

Don't you claim open mindedness?

And spirituality close mindedness?

I think a dogmatic atheist is close minded, or am I wrong?

>>
As far as Dinosaurs, it doesn't matter how long ago they existed, it would be more honest to just say they lived long ago and went extinct long ago. We do not really even need to know how long ago.
>>

Sorry, what? And why?

Why does it not matter? Why would it be "more honest" to say they lived "long ago" instead of actually establishing they lived 65M years ago?

It matters in the same way as to find out about our planet, the solar system etc...otherwise we would still sit in caves and wonder who turns on all the candles at night, instead of sending probes to other planets.

There is no REASON to be anti-scientific and anti-knowledge. It's a very human thing. It is what MAKES us humans. (Obviously and in all fairness I won't deny that beliefs and religions are also a human thing...too bad they often have to clash). But then complain to those who wrote the "holy books"...not to the scientists who, at some very fundamental level, simply live out the natural curiosity of man. You make it sound like it's a bad thing. Odd.

a reply to: Antigod


So, you deny the possibility of another plane of existance that can interact with ours? Is that correct?

a reply to: Stormdancer777

A truly open mind is open to all plausible and reasonable positions, not just those that fit their preconceived worldview.

Agnostic atheism still allows for the possibility of a god, even though we do not believe it to be the case.

I'm going to say it is a balanced approach that is important, maybe,

Go to far one extreme or the other and we get into trouble, as we have found in communist atheist societies or dogmatic religious societies.

There is a delicate balance.

OK, I'm done before I get into trouble

a reply to: GetHyped

just to advocate...

so scientists don't have complete trust of confidence that the earth is more than 10,000 years old?

When does theory become fact?

I would say any educated person with any basic grasp of geology and the speed of light has "faith" (definition 1) in at least that.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: GetHyped

just to advocate...

so scientists don't have complete trust of confidence that the earth is more than 10,000 years old?

When does theory become fact?

Never. Well not in an absolute sense.

If you jump off a skyscraper, a scientist will still only say you have a 99.9% (perhaps with an error margin of say +- 0.05%) chance of dying as a result. Science never deals in absolute certainty.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Woodcarver

You cannot take things apart and examine just one peace to conclude something. You cannot properly identify a puzzle by looking at ten pieces of a 300 piece puzzle. As far as Dinosaurs, it doesn't matter how long ago they existed, it would be more honest to just say they lived long ago and went extinct long ago. We do not really even need to know how long ago. It is appropriate to say that they were mostly long gone before the mammoth died off except their relatives the birds. I see science as trying to get too specific on things that actually really don't matter.

Now when you are dealing with nuclear Fusion/Fission and Physics, it is important to be exact. This science, and math are important to be accurate. But even there, the way our sun works is not exactly known, but they state that they do not completely know how our sun works though. A theory is a theory. Even the law of thermodynamics doesn't always apply when it integrates with life...it complicates the issue and changes the way things work. So is the law of thermodynamics actually relevent? It is when you eliminate life. It works for some things but cannot be applied to everything. Enzymes are almost a life chemical too, as are complexes of catalysts. They alter the law of thermodynamics but in the case of catalysts, they have studied these somewhat.

I have no problem with science, it is a good tool. A tool that can be used by everyone, the good, the greedy, the power hungry, and also the ones who seek pride. Now do we really need all that science creates...not really. We need food, water warmth and companionship since we are a social species.

There is so much wrong with this post. Your analogy of a puzzle is good though. That is how we know what atoms are made of. We took the puzzle apart and found out what each piece was. Now we fully understand that model. We may only be missing a few of those pieces, but we have enough of it to see the big picture.

Just because you don't think it's important (which is the def of embracing ignorance, sorry) doesn't mean that i shouldn't look deeper into the subject. The truth is there are lots of people who find it very very important to be as accurate as possible. If you dont believe the methods are good enough it merely means you haven't spent the years of study required to understand it.

Uhmmm. The methods we use to determine the age of things is firmly based in physics. What do you think radio carbon dating is?

The sun? We have an extremely accurate model of the sun and how it works. If we go back to your puzzle analogy, how many pieces of that puzzle do you think are missing.

Thermodynamics? There has never been anything to show this model is innacurate, especially life. Everything we have observed fits into this model.

Science is the only tool. It is the tool we use to make every other tool you have ever heard of. Science can be used by everyone but it can not be used accurately by people who don't understand it. Which leads to a lot of bad science which leads to a lot of misinformation. We have talked about this many times which leads me to believe you are not formally trained in science. Which makes me wonder why you have so much to say about it. No one would trust you to design a rocket, because you have not been trained to do so.

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.

I live in Tennessee. We are ranked 48 or 49th on that scale. The ignorance is tangible. Which is why i make such a point to educate those who propagate it.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Exactly!

So even playing the semantics game (if only to advocate) we can say unequivocally THERE IS NO FAITH IN SCIENCE!

Except possibly a complete trust of confidence that there's no complete trust of confidence....

Thanks for playing!

But where do you draw the line between reasonable christians and fundamentalists? The def of fundy is that you believe the five fundamental truths of christianity.

1. The inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture
2. The deity of Jesus Christ
3. The virgin birth of Christ
4. The substitutionary, atoning work of Christ on the cross
5. The physical resurrection and the personal bodily return of Christ to the earth.

if you don't believe these then you are not a christian, you are something else.

a reply to: Degradation33

How is it that you're making less and less sense with each subsequent post?

a reply to: Degradation33

Scientific theories don't become scientific fact. Scientific theories explain scientific facts.

We cannot say with 100% absolute certainty that the world is more that 10,000 years old but the odds of it not are astronomically low to the point of being effectively zero. What's your point with all of this again?

originally posted by: imwilliam
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?

No i don't. It is building a model. As new puzzle pieces come in, they are added to the model. There is no goal, other than finding the most reliable data. That goal has never moved. Science does not try to prove one theory or another. They let the data build the model.

I say that religion moves the goal post because they certainly have the goal of proving that a god exists. Their model is complete. And now they are trying to find the data that proves it.

Do you see the dif?

a reply to: GetHyped

So your saying you have absolute certainty that there is no absolute certainty, right?

So would you say you have faith in that?

Faith is a pejorative, as it is ascribed to religion. I just find it funny how people respond over pointless semantics.

My reason? None. It is for my own personal amusement.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Xtrozero

You don't have to be an atheist to acknowledge that a belief that god created man in his/her current form 10,000 years ago is profoundly ignorant and (most importantly) wrong.

You might be really smart so I would like you to answer a question for me, ok ?

The poll was basically do you agree that God created man "in his current form/advancement" in the last 10,000 years.

So my question to you is when did we reach our "current" evolutionary state?

I personally could say 200, 2000, 6000, 10000 or 100000 years depending what I am thinking at the time as current state.

What say you?